TP 

ZIO 
148 


IRLF 


32    022 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


THOMAS 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 

AND 

ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS 


By 
EDWARD  THOMAS 

ll 

Author  of  Process  Digest 

Member  of  Appellate  Federal  Bars  of 

New  York  and  Washington 


JOHN  BYRNE  &  CO. 

WASHINGTON,  D.   C. 

1917 


Tf  fc 


Copyright 

By  EDWARD  THOMAS 
1917 


PREFACE. 

The  present  book  is  more  than  a  revision  of  my  Process  Digest,  since 
it  is  entirely  rewritten,  all  the  cases  being  reread  from  the  point  of  view 
of  an  attorney  and  expert  witness,  instead  of  that  of  a  Patent  Office 
Examiner.  For  this  reason  there  are  specific  notes  on  the  kind  of  evi- 
dence needed  in  chemical  and  allied  cases,  and  also  notes  covering  the 
cases  on  damages,  licenses,  etc.  No  attempt  has  been  made  to  criticize 
any  decision  or  the  findings  on  which  it  is  based.  The  book  is  intended 
as  a  statement  of  the  law,  with  a  practically  complete  ''finding  list"  of 
the  cases  on  which  the  law  of  chemical  patents  is  based,  and  it  also  in- 
cludes the  principal  cases  intimately  related  in  reasoning  to  such  cases. 

While  errors  will  undoubtedly  be  found  it  is  believed  that  they  are 
only  such  as  are  easily  recognized.  I  only  regret  that,  unlike  Eobinson, 
I  have  not  the  leisure  needed  to  spend  two  years  in  rereading  and  veri- 
fying every  cited  case. 

Cases  are  cited,  from  the  reports  most  likely  to  be  available,  and 
which  in  general  indicate  the  authority  of  the  decision ;  viz :  reports  are 
given  preference  in  the  following  order  U.  S.  (including  Wallace  etc.)  ; 
F.  E.;  0.  G.;  Fish.  (Pat.  Cases);  Fish.  Pat.  Reports;  Robb  (Pat. 
Cases)  ;  Ban.  and  A. ;  Blatschf .,  etc.  Readers  who  have  only  the  Official 
Gazette  can  rapidly  locate  the  F.  R.  and  U.  S.  cases  included  therein  by 
ascertaining  the  approximately  parallel  volumes  from  the  table  on  page  4. 
Since  the  number  of  cases  cited  approaches  that  in  the  larger  works 
on  patent  law,  the  notes  have  been  condensed  by  citing  in  general,  only 
the  appeal  case,  or  the  last  case  of  a  series,  if  that  rules  on  all  the  points 
previously  raised,  though  where  the  prior  cases  are  cited  therein  from 
unusual  reports,  the  0.  G.  citations  are  given  herein. 

It  is  too  much  to  hope  that  everyone  will  be  satisfied  with  the  group- 
ing of  the  cases.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  cite  all  cases  on  obscure 
points,  and  on  leading  points  to  cite  all  important  cases  together  with 
those  cases  which  contain  many  citations.  The  work  covers  242  U.  S. ; 
237  F.  R.  and  235  0.  G. 

30  Vesey  Street,  New  York  City. 


372184 


TABLE  OF  PARALLEL  VOLUMES. 


YEAR. 

o5 

1 

C 
O 

jrf 

<& 

| 
M 

1 

•I 

'o 

|> 

m 
\-> 

00 

£ 

Q 

Q 

P- 
P. 
< 

187<> 

1-2 

*14-15 

1873 

3-4 

*16 

1874 

5-6 

*  17-22 

1875 

7-8 

*23 

1876 

9-10 

91-93 

1877 

11-12 

93-97 

1878 

13-14 

97 

1879 

15-16 

97 

1880 

17-18 

1-4 

100-102 

1881 

19-20 

5-9 

102-103 

1882 

21-" 

9-14 

104-106 

1883 

23.95 

14-18 

106-109 

1884 

26-99 

18-92 

109-112 

1885 

30-33 

22-25 

11°-116 

1886 

34-37 

25-29 

116-119 

1887 

38-41 

99-32 

119-123 

1888 
1889 

42-45 
46-49 

32-36 
36-40 

123-128 
199-132 



1890 
1891 

50-53 
54-57 

40-44 
44-48 

132-137 
138-141 



1892 
1893 
1894 
1895 
1896 
1897 
1898 
1899 
1900 
1901 
1902 
1903 
1904 
1905 
1906 
1907 
1908 
1909 
1910 
1911 
1912 
1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 

58-61 
62-65 
66-69 
70-73 
74-77 
78-81 
82-85 
86-89 
90-93 
94-97 
98-101 
102-107 
108-113 
114-1  19 
120-125 
126-131 
132-137 
138-149 
150-161 
162-173 
174-185 
186-197 
198-209 
210-221 
222-233 

48-52 
52-58 
58-64 
64-70 
70-76 
77-82 
83-90 
90-97 
97-104 
104-111 
111-118 
118-125 
125-132 
133-140 
140-148 
148-156 
156-164 
164-173 
173-182 
182-190 
191-199 
200-208 
208-217 
218-227 
227-236 

143-145 
147-150 
148-155 
155-159 
161-163 
167 
169-170 
169 
177-179 
179-180 
183-186 
183-191 
192 
193-198 
198-204 
206-207 
200-211 
213-214 
215-217 
220-221 
225-229 
226-229 
231-233 
235-239 
239-242 

2 
2,  3 
5,6,7 
7,8,9 
9,10,11 
11,12,13 
14,  15 
15,  16,  17 
17,18 
16-19 
21,22 
23,24 
24-26 
26-28 
28-30 
30-32 
33 
34 
36-38 
37-39 
39-41 
41 
42,43 

*Wall 


TEXT. 

The  intention  of  the  patent  law  of  the  United  States  is  to  give  a 
monopoly  for  seventeen  years  to  the  inventor  or  discoverer  of  a  new  art 
or  a  new  utility  in  any  substance,  structure  or  piece  of  machinery.  The 
inventor  is  required  to  publish  a  brief,  clear  description  of  his  invention 
and  to  carefully  define  it  (viz:  claim  it),  so  that  anyone  may  at  any  time 
find  out  whether  he  is  infringing  on  the  rights  of  the  inventor.  Of 
course  in  carrying  out  this  law  many  practical  difficulties  arise.  It  is,  for 
example,  often  difficult  to  decide  how  far  a  definition  or  claim  can  be 
pushed  in  covering  items  substantially  the  same  from  one  point  of  view 
though  they  differ  in  other  ways.  Then,  too,  the  definition  must  cover  a 
distinct  step  in  advance  and  not  something  that  is  simply  better  but  not 
otherwise  new ;  further,  the  definition  must  cover  the  real  invention  and 
not  a  mere  application  of  it. 

It  is  obviously  impossible  for  the  Patent  Office  or  the  courts  to  ex- 
amine every  workshop,  laboratory  and  factory,  so  in  judging  whether 
the  improvement  is  really  new  it  is  necessary  to  take  such  published 
data  as  are  available  and  decide  from  these  whether  the  applicant  for  a 
patent  has  shown  such  an  improvement  as  any  skilled  mechanic  or  ex- 
pert in  the  art  might  be  expected  to  have  extemporized,  or  whether  it 
is  more  than  that  and  so  deserving  of  a  patent.  In  facing  these  difficul- 
ties and  the  analogous  ones  that  arise  in  determining  the  scope  of  an 
invention,  etc.,  the  courts  have  laid  down  certain  fundamental  princi- 
ples, such  as  that  it  is  not  patentable1  to  put  an  old  machine  to  a  new 
use;  that  an  abandoned  experiment2  cannot  defeat  a  later  patent;  and 
that  where  an  improvement  goes  into  extensive  use  from  its  own3  merits, 
a  patent  allowed  on  it  must  almost  certainly  have  been  justified. 

Every  patent  (except  for  design  patents)  is  directed  either  to  an 
"instrument"  or  to  an  "operation,"  the  "instrument"  being  either  a 
machine,  a  "manufacture"  (such  as  a  structure  which  has  some  physical 
utility),  or  else  a  composition  of  matter,  (though  this  last  is  really  only  a 
specific  form  of  manufacture).  Every  chemical  patent  properly  so 
called  seems  to  be  directed  either  to  an  "  operation ' '  per  se,  or  else  to  an 
"instrument"  whose  patentability  depends  on  its  relationship  to  an 
operation  in  or  on  material  outside  itself,  e.  g.,  a  dye. 

lAmes  v.  Howard,  1  Bobb.  689;    Bean          2Crown  v.   Aluminum,   108   F.  E.   845. 
v.  Smallwood,  2  Eobb.  133.  See  also  note  82. 

3Falk  v.  Missouri,   103   F.  E.   295. 

5 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


In  addition  to  what  are  strictly  chemical  patents  and  "operation" 
patents  there  are  many  analogous  patents  out  of  which  problems  arise, 
more  nearly  allied  to  chemical  and  "operation"  patents  than  they  are 
allied  to  strictly  mechanical  patents.  Such  a  problem  was  presented  by 
the  British  patent  covering  easily  fusible  tubes  of  water  within  the 
hollow  walls  of  safes  to  increase  their  resistance  to  fire.  This  was  held 
infringed*  by  a  hollow  safe  wall  filled  with  alum  which  gives  off  water 
when  heated.  Such  problems  obviously  call  for  expert  testimony,5  as 
do  most  chemical  patents. 

Almost  all  patents,  therefore,  may  be  divided  into  two  classes,  first 
those  in  which  patentability  turns  011  mechanics6  in  its  restricted  sense 
(viz :  the  mechanics  of  rigid  bodies  and  machines) ,  and  secondly  those  in 
which7  patentability  turns  on  chemistry  or  on  electrical  or  molar  physics 
(viz:  the  physics  of  masses  of  matter,  such  as  the  flow7  of  liquids8  etc.). 
Though  the  distinctions9  between  processes  and  "manufactures"  and 
machines  are  sometimes10  vital,  and  from  a  strictly  philosophical  point 


4Milner  v.  Harrison,  cited  at  2  Web. 
Pat.  Gas.  291. 

SDececo  v.  Gilehrist,  125  F.  E.  295; 
Sundh  Elec.  v.  General  Elec.,  204  F.  R. 
277;  Schupphaus  v.  Stevens,  95  O.  G. 
1452 ;  Mark  v.  Greenwalt,  138  O.  G.  965 ; 
140  O.  G.  509;  Keyes  v.  Grant,  118 
IT.  S.  25 ;  A.  B.  Dick  v.  Underwood,  235 
F.  E.  300;  Gutta  Percha  v.  Goodyear, 
3  Ban.  and  A.  212;  Stevens  v.  Keating, 
2  Web.  181;  Fabric  Coloring  v.  Alex- 
ander, 109  F.  E.  328;  Kintner  v.  Mar- 
coni, 215  F.  E.  104;  Hassam  Paving  v. 
Consolidated,  215  F.  E.  114;  Wallerstein 
v.  Christian,  215  F.  E.  919;  Warren  v. 
Grand  Eapids,  216  F.  E.  364;  Merrell 
v.  Natural,  219  F.  E.  572.  For  the  need 
of  weighing  opinion  evidence  carefully  in 
obscure  questions  of  electricity,  see 
Pieper  v.  S.  S.  White,  228  F.  E/30. 

6A  few  patents  depend  for  their  novelty 
on  the  cooperation  of  parts  in  the  mind 
of  the  user  or  operative.  Krell  Auto  v. 
Story,  207  F.  E.  946,  and  citations  there- 
in. Certain  patents  on  electric  signalling 
also  seem  to  depend  on  mental  coopera- 
tion, see  O'Beilly  v.  Morse,  15  How.  62, 
and  National  EJectric  Signal  v.  United, 
189  F.  E.  727.  But  a  process  which  de- 
pends on  cooperation  of  the  nervous  sys- 
tem is  not  patentable.  Morton  v.  N.  Y. 
Eye,  2  Fish.  320.  But  see,  ex  parte, 
Sanche,  80  O.  G.  185. 

7Porter   v.    Baldwin,    227    F.    E.    216; 


Stevens  v.  Keating,  2  Web.  181  at  188; 
Bartey  v.  Lincoln,  4  Fish.  379 ;  Amer. 
Fibre  Chamois  v.  Buckskin,  72  F.  E. 
508.  Process  of  forming  wire  glass. 
Western  Glass  v.  Schmertz,  185  F.  R. 
788. 

SHorn  v.  Bergner,  68  F.  E.  428;  Ex 
parte  Eogers,  87  O.  G.  699;  Terry  v. 
Sturtevant,  231  F.  E.  162. 

9Uhlman  v.  Arnholdt  and  Schaefer 
Brewing,  53  F.  E.  485. 

lOEx  parte  Eogers,  87  O.  G.  699 ;  Grier 
v.  Wilt,  120  U.  S.  412;  Mitchell  v.  Con- 
nellsville,  231  F.  E.  131;  Kiefer  v. 
Unionwerke,  231  F.  E.  733;  General 
Electric  v.  Laco,  233  F.  E.  96;  Fancy 
v.  Empire  Fire  Clay,  47  F.  E.  313;  Pratt 
v.  Thompson,  83  F.  E,  516;  Weierman 
v.  Shaw,  157  F.  E.  928.  Where  inven- 
tion lay  in  process  only,  product  claim  is 
void.  Dieckmann  v.  Milwaukee,  174  F. 
E.  150 ;  Compare  National  Enamelling 
v.  N.  E.,  151  F.  E.  19;  Le  Eoy  v.  Tat- 
ham,  14  How.  156;  22  How.  132.  Com- 
pare O'Eeilly  v.  Morse,  15  How.  62; 
Corning  v.  Burden,  15  How.  252;  Bos- 
ton Elastic  v.  Easthampton,  5  O.  G.  696; 
Bell  v.  Gray,  15  O.  G.  776;  Bullock 
Electric  v.  Westinghouse,  129  F.  E.  105. 
Compare  Underwood  v.  Gerber,  149  U. 
S.  224;  Eisdon  v.  Medart,  158  U.  S.  68. 
Compare  Boyden  v.  Westinghouse,  170 
U.  S.  537.  An  article  claim  cannot  be 
construed  as  a  process.  Ewart  v.  Mo- 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS.  7 

of  view  always11  exist,  yet  the  present  writer  believes  that  in  practice  it 
is  impossible  to  define  the  lines  of  distinction  so  that  the  definition  will 
be  of  universal  practical  utility  in  patent  law.  The  difficulty  of  drawing 
such  lines  and  the  unreasonableness  of  attempting  to  deduce  them  from 
the  decisions  of  the  courts  lies  largely  in  the  fact  that  patentability  de- 
pends on  utility,  bearing  in  mind  that  utility  means  "industrial12  value," 
and  this  utility  may  be  defined  either  by  the13  product  or  the14  result  of 
the  machine  or  process,15  or  by  the  adaptability  of  the  * '  manufacture ' '  to 
cooperate  with  something16  else,  or  it  may  depend  on  the  coordination  of 
its  parts  among  themselves. 

The  claims  of  a  United  States  patent,  in  the  case  of  most  machines 
and  many  processes  (including  chemical  processes),  may  well  be  re- 
garded as  definitions  of  the  parts  of  the  invention  in  terms  of  their  abso- 
lute17 industrial  value,  viz:  in  terms  of  the  function  they  contribute  to 
the  elements  with  which  they  are  associated;  but  in  the  case  of  many 
manufactures  (for  example  textile  fabrics)  and  compositions  of  matter, 
the  claim  merely  recites  the  novel  useful  elements.  Now  since  the  indus- 
trial value  of  an  invention  may  be  often  approached  from  more  than 
one  point  of  view  it  seems  obvious  that  a  claim  may  on  its  face  cover 


line,  30  F.  E.  871.  Where  the  invention 
lay  in  using  an  old  skein  in  a  novel  way, 
a  claim  to  the  skein  is  void.  Grant  v. 
Walter,  38  F.  E.  594;  148  U.  S.  547. 

UNew  Process  Fermentation  v.  Koch, 
21  F.  E.  580;  Compare  in  re  Weston,  94 
O.  G.  1786;  Ex  parte  Kilbourn,  221  O. 
G.  737.  But  see  ex  parte,  Trevette,  97 
O.  G.  1173.  Compare  Expanded  Metal  v. 
Bradford,  214  U.  S.  366;  and  citations 
therein. 

12See  street  flushing  machine  where  in- 
vention lay  in  angle  of  incidence  of 
stream.  Sanitary  Street  Flushing  v.  Am- 
sterdam, 225  F.  E.  389;  229  F.  E.  421; 
Eibel  v.  Eemington,  234  F.  E.  624. 

ISEeichenbach  v.  Kelly,  94  O.  G.  1185; 
Sydeman  v.  Thoma,  141  O.  G.  866;  Vac- 
uum v.  Innovation,  234  F.  E.  942;  Pel- 
ton  Water  Wheel  v.  Doble,  190  F.  E.  760; 
Buzzell  v.  Andrews,  25  F.  E.  822;  Knick- 
erbocker v.  Eogers,  61  F.  E.  297;  King 
v.  Hubbard,  97  F.  E.  795;  Diamond  v. 
Brown,  130  P.  E.  896;  137  F.  E.  910. 
Compare  United  Shoe  v.  Greenman,  153 
F.  E.  283 ;  Grever  v.  U.  S.  Hoffman,  202 
F.  E.  923.  See  mere  change  of  angle  in 
a  grate.  McClave  v.  Treadwell,  220  F. 
E.  144. 


l4Novelty  v.  Brookfield,  170  F.  E.  946; 
Mine  v.  Braeckel,  197  F.  E.  897;  Cimi- 
otti  Unhairing  v.  Am.  Fur.,  193  U.  S. 
670  and  citations;  Lewis  v.  Cronemeyer, 
130  O.  G.  300;  Knight  v.  Gavit,  11  Fed. 
Cas.  765;  Treadwell  v.  Fox,  3  App. 
Comr.  Pats.  201;  Wells  v.  Hegaman,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  648;  Mayer  v.  Mutschler,  237 
F.  E.  654. 

15Le  Eoy  v.  Tatham,  22  How.  132. 
Bleaching  flour  is  patentable,  even 
though  the  product  may  be  an  adulterant. 
Naylor  v.  Alsop,  168  F.  E.  911.  "It  is 
not  a  method  of  making  better  coke,  but 
a  better  method  of  making  coke."  Mit- 
chell v.  Connellsville,  231  F.  E.  131. 

16Hogan  v.  Westmoreland,  167  F.  E. 
327  ,•  Kennicott  v.  Holt  Ice,  230  F.  E. 
157;  Voorhees  Eubber  v.  McDonell,  231 
F.  E.  741.  Compare  Sundh  v.  General, 
235  F.  E.  708.  Insulated  gas  burner 
joint  not  anticipated  by  same  material 
for  whole  burner.  Bogart  v.  Hinds,  26 
F.  E.  149;  Ewart  v.  Moline,  30  F.  E. 
873.  But  see  Maitland  v.  Gibson,  63 
F.  E.  126;  63  F.  E.  840. 

17Bell  v.  Gray,  15  O.  G.  776;  Wyeth  v. 
Stone,  2  Eobb.  23;  Whitney  v.  Emmett, 
1  Eobb.  567. 


8  CHEMICAL  PATENTS 

only  a  machine,  but  depend  for  its  validity  on,  and  have  its  scope  de- 
termined by  considerations  which  are  not  mechanical.18  Again,  for 
example  where  a  novel  elasticity  is  obtained  in  a  knit  fabric,  it  may  be 
impossible  to  state  whether  the  invention  lies  in  the  fabric  itself,  or  in 
the  method  of  forming  it. 

Many  considerations  must  determine  from  what  point  of  view  a 
claim  should  be  drawn,  since  on  the  one  hand  a  process  claim  is  not  in- 
fringed by  the  selling  of  the  product19  of  the  process,  while  on  the  other 
hand  situations  arise  like  that  in  which  an  inventor  patented  a  special 
form  of  skein  which  he  devised  for  use  in  dyeing,  but  the  patent  was 
held  void  because  the  skein  turned  out  to  be  old,  though  its  use  in  dye- 
ing20 was  new. 

The  subject  of  the  relationship  of  processes,  products,  machines,  etc., 
is  further  complicated  by  the  fact  that  the  courts  usually  construe 
patents  liberally  in  the21  endeavor  to  give  adequate  protection  to  pat- 
entees who  are  relying  on  imperfectly  conceived  and  badly  constructed 
specifications  and  claims. 

The  present  writer  realizes  that  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  include 
every  case  which  turned  on  considerations  having  their  basis  in  facts 
which  are  primarily  chemical  in  their  nature,  or  which  belong  with 
chemical  facts,  largely  because  such  facts  frequently  do  not  appear  on 
the  face  of  the  decision.  Besides  this  there  will  be  some  disagreement 
as  to  what  constitute  such  facts.  It  is  believed,  however,  that  the  cases 
cited  herein  cover  almost  every  pertinent  point. 

The  present  writer  feels  sure  that  if  the  same  attention  were  given 
to  specification  planning22  and  writing  as  is  often  given  to  claim  draft- 

ISSeibert  Cyl.  Oil  Cup  v.  Harper  Steam  Am.   Gramophone   v.    Gimbel,   234   F.   R. 

Lub.,    4     F.     R.     328;      King    v.     Hub-  361. 

bard,  97  F.  R.  795 ;  National  Electric  20Grant  v.  Walter,  148  U.  S.  547. 
v.  Telefunken,  208  F.  R.  679  (overruled  21New  Process  Fermentation  v.  Maus, 
on  new  evidence,  230  F.  R.  829);  Detroit  20  F.  R.  723;  National  Enamelling  v. 
Copper  v.  Mine,  215  F.  R.  100;  U.  S.  N.  E.  151  F.  R.  19;  Novelty  v.  Brook- 
Hoffman  v.  Becker,  224  F.  R.  484;  Corn-  field,  170  F.  R.  946. 
ing  v.  Burden,  15  How.  252 ;  Deceeo  v.  22General  Subconstruction  v.  Netcher, 
Gilchrist,  125  F.  R.  293;  Hubbell  v.  U.  174  F.  R.  236;  Lumber  v.  Nestor,  178 
S.,  179  U.  S.  82;  Weintraub  v.  Hewitt,  F.  R.  927;  Ballou  v.  Potter,  110  F.  R, 
378  O.  G.  889;  180  O.  G.  882.  But  969;  National  Enamelling  v.  N.  E.,  151 
"method"  has  frequently  been  used  in  F.  R.  19;  Gilbert  v.  Waltzelham,  197  F. 
describing  a  mere  mechanical  coordina-  R.  315;  Sewall  v.  Jones,  91  U.  S.  171; 
tion  of  elements.  Flower  v.  Detroit,  127  McKnight  v.  Pohle,  130  O.  G.  2069.  In 
U.  S.  557 ;  Burt  v.  Every,  133  U.  S.  re  Merrill,  199 .0.  G.  618 ;  Bene  v.  Jean- 
349.  See  elasticity  of  hairs  in  fur.  Cim-  tet,  129  U.  S.  683 ;  Gottfried  v.  Crescent 
iotti  Unhairing  v.  Am.  Fur,  193  U.  S.  Brewing,  9  F.  R.  762;  Royer  v.  Chicago, 
670,  and  citations  therein.  20  F.  R.  853 ;  Tannage  v.  Zahn,  66  F.  R. 

19Merrill   v.    Yoemans,   94   U.    S.   568;  986;     Chemical    v.    Raymond,    68    F.    R. 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS.  9 

ing,  much  expensive  litigation  would  be  avoided,  for  the  patentability  of 
claims  and  the  correctness  of  the  underlying  theory  of  the  specification 
can  often  be  made  so  obvious  as  to  render  it  useless  to  attack  them  in 
court.  Solicitors  often  forget  that  theoretically  the  specification  is  not 
addressed  to  lawyers,  but  to  those  skilled  in  the  art,  and  must  at  least 
set  forth  real  and  fundamental  facts  of  the  invention,  and  not  merely 
irrelevant  observations,  however  new  and  interesting  the  phenomena23 
may  seem  to  be  at  the  time. 

Specification  writers  often  forget  that  any  process  and  composition 
claim  is  void  if  the  steps  or  ingredients  enumerated  in  the  claim  are 
less24  than  those  which  the  specification  makes  essential ;  and  that,  in  the 
same  way,  if  a  given  device  or  limitation  is  essential,  according  to  the 
specification,  one  who  does26  not  use  it  is  not  an  infringer.  But,  while 
claims  are  limited  by  the  statement  of  invention,  they  are  not  limited  by 
the  examples  given,  and  may  be  much26  broader  than  such  examples. 

Many  a  patent  has  been  rendered  worthless  by  failure  of  the  speci- 
fication writer  to  include  a  careful  detailed  description  of  how  the 
process,  etc.,  might  be  carried  out,  apparently  through  fear  lest  such  a 
description  might  be  construed  as  a  necessary  limitation  of  the  claims. 
Specification  writers  seem  to  forget  that  such  a  description  is  strictly 
analogous  to  the  drawings  of  a  mechanical  patent,  and  if  properly 
worded  need  never  constitute  a  limitation. 

570;    71  F.  R.  179;    Kennedy  v.  Solar,  ting    step    in    electrical    control    method. 

69    F.    R.    716;     Cerealine   v.    Bates,    77  General  v.   Garrett,   141  F.  R.  994;    re- 

F.  R.  970;    Matheson  v.  Campbell,  78  F.  versed  on  ground  step  is  only  modified. 

R.  910;    National  v.  Swift,  104  F.  R.  87;  General  v.  Garrett,  146  F.  R.  66.     Com- 

Bracewell    v.    Passaic,    107    F.    R.    467.  pare  National  Newsboard  v.  Elkhart,  123 

Such  as  stating  that  a  given  apparatus  is  F.  R.  431;  Hentschel  v.  Carthage,  169  F. 

necessary.     Georgia  v.  Billfinger,  129  F.  R.   114;    National  Enamelling  v.  N.  E., 

R.   131.  153  F.  R.  184.     The  word  "meantime" 

23Russell  v.  Dodge,  93  U.  S.  460;    Car-  in    a   claim    cannot    be    ignored.      Crown 

negie  v.  Cambria,  185  U.  S.  425.  Cork  v.  American,  211  F.  R.  650;    Trus- 

24Universal  Brush  v.  Sonn,  146  F.  R.  sed  v.  Corrugated,  222  F.  R.  514. 
517;    Downs  v.   Teter-Heany,   150   F.  R.  25Doubleday  v.  Bracheo,  2  Fish.  560; 

122.     Compare  Arnold  v.  Phelps,   20  F.  Am.  Wood  Paper  v.  Heft,  3  Fish.  316; 

R.   315;     Crown   Cork  v.   American,   211  but   see   Buchanan   v.   Rowland,    2   Fish. 

F.  R.  650 ;    Orr  v.  Aschenbach,  225  F.  R.  341.     Compare  Strong  v.  Noble,  3  Fish. 

71;    L.   H.   Gilmer  v.   Geisel,  187   F.  R,  586. 

606;  187  F.  R.  941;  Francis  v.  Mellor,  26Ex  parte  Steinmetz,  224  O.  G.  363; 
1  O.  G.  48 ;  Ex  parte  Loeser,  9  O.  G.  ex  parte  Fritts,  227  O.  G.  737 ;  Electric 
837;  In  re  Creveling,  117  O.  G.  1167.  v.  Carborundum,  102  F.  R.  618;  Good- 
Compare  in  re  Dosselman,  167  O.  G.  983;  win  v.  Eastman,  213  F.  R.  231;  Tilgh- 
Dittmar  v.  Rix,  1  F.  R.  342;  Simmonds  man  v.  Proctor,  102  IT.  S.  707;  Buch- 
Counter  v.  Young,  35  F.  R.  517;  Royer  anan  v.  Rowland,  2  Fish.  341.  But  see 
v.  Coupe,  38  F.  R.  113.  Is  therefore  void  North  American  Chemical  v.  Keno,  227 
if  it  fails  to  distinguish  from  prior  art.  F.  R.  63. 
Cerealine  v.  Bates,  77  F.  R.  970.  Omit- 


10 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


The  question  of  joint27  inventorship  of  processes,  as  set  forth  in  the 
decisions,  is  difficult  to  reconcile  with  analogous  decisions  on  machine 
patents. 

Patents  which  seem  to  be  mechanical  method  patents,  are  apparently 
very  rare  except  in  arts  like  the  textile  art,  where  elasticity  and  other 
obscure  properties  often  are  vital,  so  that  the  mechanical  methods  of 
kniting,  weaving,  etc.  have  a  profound  but  not  easily28  foreseen  effect 
on  the  product. 

A  process  is  independent  of  a  given  form  of  machine,  though  some 
processes  appear  to  be  necessarily  performed  only  by  a  given  machine  at 
the  time29  of  patenting.  The  patentability  of  processes  which  are  pri- 
marily mechanical  is  extremely  difficult  of  definition30  and  usually  can- 
not be  decided  on  the31  face  of  the  patents.  Apparently  a  series  of  steps 
is  patent  able  if  its32  utility  overcomes  a  hitherto  insuperable  obstacle,  or 
depends  on  an  idea  which  has  previously  been  thought33  preposterous,  or 
depends  on  some  hitherto  unsuspected  possibility  in  the34  materials  used. 


27Welsbaeh  v.  Cosmopolitan,  104  F.  E. 
83;  Barrow  v.  Wetherill,  MacArthur, 
315. 

28General  Knit  v.  Steber,  190  F.  E. 
47;  Chase  v.  Fillebrown,  58  F.  E.  374; 
Baling  hay.  Dederick  v.  Cassell,  9  F. 
E.  306.  But  see  method  of  making  cig- 
arettes. Ludington  Cigarette  v.  Anar- 
gyros,  188  F.  E.  318.  Fabric  valid.  Kerr 
v.  Hoyle,  55  F.  E.  658. 

29Doelger  v.  German-American,  204  F. 
B.  274.  Compare  note  102. 

SONeidich  v.  Edwards,  169  F.  E,  424; 
Edison  v.  Allis,  191  F.  E.  837;  San 
Francisco  v.  Beyrle,  195  F.  E.  516;  En- 
gineer v.  Hotel,  226  F.  E.  779;  226  F. 

E.  949.      Compare    Kennedy    v.    Beaver, 
232  F.  E.  477;    Ex  parte  Mann,  3  App. 
Com.  Pats.  367;  Appleton  v.  Star,  60  F. 
^..  411.     Mere  cutting,  etc.  and  assembl- 
ing not  patentable.     Wells  Glass  v.  Hen- 
derson, 67  F.  E.  930.     Compare  Interna- 
tional Tooth  Crown  v.  Bennett,  72  F.  E. 
169;     77    F.    E.    313;      International    v. 
Kyle,  96  F.  E.  442.     Compare  Strom  v. 
Weir,  83  F.  E.  170.     Compare  American 
Strawboard    v.    Elkhart,    84    F.    B.    960. 
Compare    Goldie   v.    Diamond,    81    F.    B. 
173.     Making  rasp  teeth  not  patentable. 
Stokes  v.  Heller,  96  F.  B.   104. 

SIMatteawan    Mfg.    v.    Emmons,    185 

F.  B.  814. 

32A  patent  whose  only  purpose  is  to 
produce  a  deceptive  product  is  not  use- 


ful within  the  meaning  of  patent  law. 
Bickard  v.  Du  Bon,  103  F.  B.  868;  Edi- 
son v.  Hardie,  68  F.  B.  487;  Ex  parte 
Morris,  1870  C.  D.  71. 

33Goldie  v.  Diamond,  81  F.  E.  173; 
Breuchaud  v.  Mutual,  166  F.  B,  75:i ; 
American  Graphophone  v.  Universal,  151 
F.  E.  595;  American  Graphophone  v. 
Leeds,  170  F.  E.  327;  Westinghouse  v. 
Allis,  176  F.  B.  362;  Porter  v.  Baldwin. 
227  F.  E.  216;  Carnegie  v.  Cambria,  185 
U.  S.  425;  Snook-Roentgen  v.  Stetson, 
237  F.  E.  204. 

34Lalance  and  Grosjean  v.  Habermann. 
53  F.  E.  375;  Pittsburg  Reduction  v. 
Cowles  Elec.  Smelt.,  55  F.  E.  301;  Chis- 
holm  v.  Johnson,  106  F.  E.  191;  re- 
versed 115  F.  B.  625,  but  see  dissent,  and 
Chisholm  v.  Fleming,  133  F.  B.  924; 
Utilizing  heat  of  impurities  in  alumina 
hydrate  when  treated  with  acid.  Damon 
v.  Eastwick.  14  F.  E.  40;  Karfiol  v. 
Bothner,  165  F.  R.  923;  Mica  v.  Com- 
mercial, 166  F.  R.  440.  Bepairing  in- 
jured tree.  Davey  v.  Cutter,  197  P.  B. 
178.  Grading  grinding  sand.  Hitch- 
cock v.  American,  227  F.  B.  227.  Mc- 
Clurg  v.  Kingsland,  1  How.  202;  United 
Nickel  v.  Harris,  17  O.  G.  325  (see  other 
United  Nickel  cases).  In  a  manufacture, 
General  Electric  Co.  v.  Laco,  233  F.  B. 
96.  Compare  Eibel  v.  Remington,  234  F. 
B.  624.  Minerals  Separation  v.  Hyde, 
242  U.  S.  261. 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


11 


A  method  of  assembling  a  ball  bearing  having  both,  inner  and  outer 
races  integral  was  held35  patentable,  though  putting  an  old  seam  in  a 
difficult  place  was  held  not  to  be  a  patentable36  process.  Mere  transpo- 
sitions of  the  material  used  to  another  part  of  a  machine  operating  on 
them  does  not  make  a  patentable37  process. 

The  result  which  was  hitherto38  unattainable  will  confer  patent- 
ability on  the  process  which  produces  the  new  result,  even  if  that  result 
or  utility  is  only  in  enabling  the  product  to  be  obtained  at  less39  cost  and 
in  less  time,  though  the  new  result  or  utility  must  be  revolutionary,  and 
not  merely  better. 

It  seems  generally  agreed  that  a  process  which  involves  a  new  se- 
quence of  chemical  or  mechanical  steps,  or  an  electrical  operating  system, 
is40  patentable  if  the  result  differs  greatly  from  that  produced  by  the  old 
order  of  steps  or  organization,  either  in  increased41  efficiency  of  work,  or 


35Hess  Bright  v.  Standard,  177  F.  B. 
435.  Compare  Breuchaud  v.  Mutual,  157 
F.  E.  844;  reversed,  166  F.  E.  753.  Com- 
pare in  re  Weston,  94  O.  G.  1786. 

36McKay  v.  Jackman,  12  F.  E.  615. 
But  putting  a  new  foundation  in  a  diffi- 
cult place  is  patentable.  Breuchaud  v. 
Mutual,  166  F.  B.  753.  Grinding  down 
part  of  the  mussel  shells  and  then  cut- 
ting blanks  is  not  patentable.  In  re 
Weber,  117  O.  G.  1494. 

37Gindorff  v.  Deering,  81  F.  B.  952; 
Burr  v.  Duryee,  1  Wall.  531,  distinguish- 
ing McClurg  v.  Kingsland,  1  How.  202. 
Compare  a  heating  system.  Ex  parte 
Dixon,  123  O.  G.  653. 

38United  Nickel  v.  California,  25  F. 
E,  475 ;  Adams  v.  Bridgewater,  26  F.  E. ' 
324;  Gary  v.  Lovell,  31  F.  E.  344;  Pa- 
cific v.  Southern,  48  F.  E.  300;  Vermont 
v.  Gibson,  56  F.  E.  143 ;  Salts  Textile  v. 
Tingue,  227  F.  E.  115;  Philadelphia  Eub- 
ber  v.  U.  S.,  229  F.  E.  150;  but  see  Phil- 
adelphia Eubber  v.  Portage,  227  F.  E. 
623;  Tilghman  v.  Morse,  1  O.  G.  574; 
United  Nickel  v.  Anthes,  1  O.  G.  578; 
k,  Thomas  v.  Electric  Porcelain,  111  F. 
B.  473.  Even  if  the  result  is  merely  mak- 
ing intelligible  signals.  National  Elec. 
Signal  v.  United  Wireless,  189  F.  E. 
727;  Marconi  v.  De  Forest,  138  F.  E. 
657;  Marconi  v.  National,  213  F.  E. 
815;  French  v.  Eogers,  1  Fish.  133; 
O'Eeilly  v.  Morse,  15  How.  62.  Uniting 
metal  to  rubber.  Hood  v.  Boston,  21  F. 
E.  67. 

39Beryle  v.  San  Francisco,  181  F.  E. 


692;  Kahn  v.  Starrells,  135  F.  E.  532; 
Gottfried  v.  Bartolomae,  13  O.  G.  1128; 
overruled  Crescent  v.  Gottfried,  128  U. 
S.  158;  Gibbs  v.  Hoefner,  19  F.  E. 
323;  Eastern  Paper  Bag  v.  Standard, 
30  F.  E.  63;  N.  Y.  Grape  Sugar  v. 
Buffalo,  18  F.  E.  638;  Travers  v.  Amer- 
ican Cordage,  64  F.  E.  771;  Schwarz- 
walder  v.  N.  Y.,  66  F.  E.  152.  Or  in  an 
electrical  distribution  method,  to  make  it 
commercially  more  useful.  Bullock  v. 
Crocker,  141  F.  E.  101.  But  see  Hyde 
v.  Minerals,  214  F.  E.  100,  reversed,  16 
Met.  and  Chem.  Eng.  21 ;  and  De  Lamar 
v.  De  Lamar,  117  F.  E.  240.  Compare 
Kintner  v.  Atlantic,  230  F.  E.  829.  Min- 
erals Separation  v.  Miami,  237  F.  E. 
609. 

40New  Process  Fermentation  v.  Maus, 
20  F.  E.  725;  Thomson  v.  Two  Eivers, 
63  F.  E.  120;  Strater  v.  Keyes,  69  F. 

E.  619;     American    Fibre    Chamois    v. 
Buckskin,    72    F.    E.    508;     Chicago    v. 
Charles  Pope,  84  F.  E.  977;    Streator  v. 
Wire   Glass,  97   F.   E.   950;     Johnson   v. 
Foos,   141  F.  E.   73;     Pressed  Prism  v. 
Continuous,    150    F.    E.    355;     American 
Graphophone  v.  Universal,  151  F.  E.  595 ; 
Westinghouse  v.  Beacon,  95   F.  E.  462; 
Byerly  v.  Cleveland,  31  F.  E.  73;    Daniel 
Green  v.  Dolgeville,  210  F.  E.  164;  Con- 
solidated v.   Hassam  Paving,   227   F.   E. 
436.    Utilizing  all  waves  in  wireless.  Mar- 
coni v.  National,  213  F.  E.  815. 

41Eastern  Paper  Bag  v.  Standard,  30 

F.  B.  63;    German-American  v.  Erdrich, 
98  F.  E.  300;    Diamond  v.  Dean,  111  F. 


12 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


in42  character  of  product.  But  the  mere  altering  of  sequence  of  steps 
or  the  steps  themselves  such  as  any  chemist  or  one  skilled  in  the  art 
would  be  likely  to  devise  is  not43  patentable  nor  does  it  avoid44  infringe- 
ment. 

Even  in  a  mechanical  process  the  adding  of  a  new45  step,  or  the 


R.  380;  Universal  Brush  v.  Sonn,  146 
F.  R.  517;  Cameron  v.  Village,  159  F. 
P.  453;  Malignani  v.  Hill  Wright,  177 
P.  R.  430;  Moore  Filter  v.  Tonopah, 
201  F.  R.  532;  Coal  and  Coke  v.  Ernst, 
212  F.  R.  434;  219  F.  R.  898;  Ex  parte 
Wetherell,  1869  C.  D.  87;  Tilghman  v. 
Proctor,  102  U.  S.  707;  Ex  parte  Blum- 
er,  72  O.  G.  1783. 

42Wolff  v.  E.  I.  Du  Pont,  134  F.  R, 
863 ;  Victor  v.  American  Gramophone, 
189  F.  R.  359;  Standard  Asphalt  v. 
American,  203  F.  R.  508;  Goodwin  v. 
Eastman,  213  F.  R.  231;  McClurg  v. 
Kingsland,  1  How.  202;  Irish  v.  Knapp, 
18  O.  G.  735;  R.  Thomas  v.  Elec.  Por- 
celain, 111  P.  R.  473;  United  Nickel  v. 
Manhattan,  4  Ban.  and  A.  173;  Pacific 
v.  Bingham,  62  F.  R.  281;  Horn  v. 
Bergner,  68  F.  R.  428;  U.  S.  Mitis  v. 
Carnegie,  89  F.  R.  343;  Hemolin  v. 
Harway,  131  F.  R.  483;  Johnson  v. 
Foos,  141  F.  R.  73.  Polishable  wire 
glass.  Schmertz  v.  Pittsburgh,  168  F.  R. 
73;  Schmertz  v.  Western,  178  F.  R.  973; 
178  F.  R,  977.  Bleached  untainted  flour. 
Xaylor  v.  Alsop,  168  F.  R.  911. 

«Peters  v.  Chicago,  215  F.  R.  724; 
Ex  parte  Mason,  1871  C.  D.  182;  Ex 
parte  Taylor,  1871  C.  D.  309;  Ex  parte 
Leggett,  2  O.  G.  199;  Adamson  v.  Ded- 
erick,  2  O.  G.  523;  Ex  parte  Hibbard, 
4  O.  G.  54.  When  old  in  almost  the 
same  art.  Meyer  v.  Pritchard,  7  O.  G. 
1012.  Ex  parte  Holcomb,  16  O.  G.  48; 
Ex  parte  Spear,  16  O.  G.  1502;  Mond 
v.  Commissioner  Patents,  91  O.  G.  1437; 
Ex  parte  Wickers,  124  O.  G.  1521;  129 
O.  G.  2074;  In  re  Wright,  151  O.  G. 
1015;  In  re  Droop,  133  O.  G.  517;  In 
re  White,  136  0.  G.  1771;  Zimmerman 
v.  Advance,  232  F.  R.  866;  Union  Paper 
Bag  v.  Waterbury,  70  F.  R.  240;  Amer- 
ican Fibre  Chamois  v.  Port  Huron,  72  F. 
R.  516;  Cerealine  v.  Bates,  101  F.  R. 
272;  Stuart  v.  Auger,  149  F.  R.  748; 
Highland  v.  Schmertz,  178  F.  R.  944. 
Compare  Schmertz  v.  Western,  178  F. 
R,  973;  178  F.  R.  977;  Sanford  Mills 
v.  Mass.  Mohair,  119  F.  R.  355;  Farrel 


v.  United  Verde,  121  F.  R.  552.  Making 
a  new  form  of  rubber  ring.  Coldren  v. 
Empire,  17;1  F.  R.  361;  Fried.  Krupp  v. 
Midvale,  191  F.  R.  588.  Singeing  dyed 
goods  not  patentable.  Sarfert  v.  Chip- 
man,  194  F.  R.  113.  Hulling  in  succes- 
sive machines  each  set  closer,  not  patent- 
able  process.  Ball  v.  Coker,  210  F.  R. 
278.  Compare  Ex  parte  Shippen,  8  O.  G. 
726. 

Reducing  quantity  of  re-agents.  Hyde 
v.  Minerals,  214  F.  R.  100,  reversed  242 
U.  S.  261. 

44General  v.  Garrett,  146  F.  R.  66; 
Pressed  Prism  v.  Continuous,  150  F.  R. 
355;  Malignani  v.  Germania,  169  F.  R. 
299;  General  Electric  v.  Hill-Wright, 
174  F.  R.  996,  174  F.  R.  1013;  Malig- 
nani v.  Hill-Wright,  177  F.  R.  430;  Coal 
and  Coke  v.  Ernst,  212  F.  R,  434;  219 
F.  R.  898;  National  v.  Flexible  Conduit, 
215  F.  R,  388;  U.  S.  Frumentum  v.  Lan- 
hoff,  216  F.  R.  610;  Chadeloid  v.  Thurs- 
ton,  220  F.  R.  685;  Hitchcock  v.  Ameri- 
can, 227  F.  R.  227;  Kintner  v.  Atlantic, 
230  F.  R,  829;  Hoffman  v.  Aronson,  4 
Fish.  456;  Hammerschlag  v.  Bancroft, 
32  F.  R.  585;  N.  Y.  v.  Elmira,  82  F.  R. 
459;  U.  S.  Mitis  v.  Carnegie,  89  F.  R. 
343.  But  there  is  no  infringement  where 
omitted  steps  modify  others.  U.  S.  Glass 
v.  Atlas,  90  F.  R.  724.  Such  as  expand- 
ing an  inner  instead  of  compressing  an 
outer  tube.  Burdon  v.  Williams,  128  F. 
R.  927.  But  not  in  a  highly  developed 
knit  goods  art.  Kahn  v.  Starrells,  13.1 
F.  R.  464.  But  in  a  highly  developed  art 
the  order  of  steps  is  vital.  Dieckniann 
v.  Milwaukee,  174  F.  R.  150. 

45German-American  v.  Loew,  loo  F.  R. 
124;  164  F.  R.  855;  Byerley  v.  Sun, 
184  F.  R.  455;  Moore  v.  Tonopah,  201 
F.  R.  532;  Hassam  Paving  v.  Consoli- 
dated, 215  F.  R.  114;  National  v.  Flex- 
ible Conduit,  215  F.  R.  388;  Waller- 
stein  v.  Liebmann,  215  F.  R.  915;  Mc- 
Cormick  v.  Medusa.  222  F.  R,  288;  Shaw 
v.  Colwell,  11  F.  R.  711;  Guarantee  v. 
New  Haven  Gas  Light,  39  F.  R,  268. 
Fumigating  at  night  not  patentable  over 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


13 


substituting  of  a  new46  step  for  an  old  step  makes  the  new47  process 
paten  table  if  it  produces  a  radically  new  result.  The  new  process  may, 
however,  infringe48  the  old  process.  Sometimes,  however,  especially  in 
an  art  which  is  evolving  rather  rapidly,  it  is  difficult  to  decide  what  is 
patentably  a49  new  step  or  a  new  result  which  will  confer  patentability, 
because  the  mere  increasing  of  the  degree  of  a  step,  or  doing  it  by  ma- 


clay,  though  better.  Wall  v.  Leek,  61 
F.  E.  291,  66  F.  E.  552.  Filtering  and 
adding  a  coagulant.  N.  Y.  v.  Jewell,  61 
F.  K.  840;  Schwartzwalder  v.  N.  Y.,  66 
F  E.  152.  Even  so  simple  a  one  as  us- 
ing a  rubber  pinch-cock.  General  Elec- 
tric v.  Hill- Wright,  174  F.  E.  996; 
General  Electric  v.  Germania,  174  F.  E. 
1013.  Molding  wet  concrete  in  absorb- 
ent sand.  Emerson  and  Norris  v.  Simp- 
son Bros.,  188  F.  E.  808.  Artificially 
propelling  sand  for  sand  blast.  Tilgh- 
man  v.  Morse,  1  O.  G.  574. 

46Ex  parte  Waterman,  17  O.  G.  451; 
Ex  parte  Butz,  67  O.  G.  677;  New 
Process  v.  Maus,  122  U.  S.  431;  Merrell 
v.  Powdered  Milk,  215  F.  E.  922;  Elec- 
tric v.v  Pittsburgh,  125  F.  E.  926;  Pressed 
Prism  v.  Continuous,  150  F.  E.  355;  Nay- 
lor  v.  Alsop,  168  F.  E.  911;  Clinton  v. 
Wright,  65  F.  E.  425;  reversed,  67  F.  E. 
790;  Everett  v.  Haulenbeek,  68  F.  E. 
911.  But  not  if  the  same  step  is  ana- 
loigous  elsewhere,  Evans  v.  Suess,  86  F. 
E.  779,  but  see  dissent;  Eawson  v.  West- 
ern, 118  F.  E.  575.  Making  linoleum 
spongy  to  make  it  adhere  is  novel.  Mel- 
vin  v.  Thomas  Potter,  91  F.  E.  151. 
Even  if  the  new  step  is  merely  making 
the  step  more  perfect.  Hedden  v.  Eaton, 
11  Fed.  Cas.  1019.  Building  up  by  over- 
lapping, patentable  over  making  plastic 
mass.  Mica  Insulator  v.  Union,  137  F. 
E.  928.  Using  an  absorbent  mold  to 
cast  cement  blocks.  Donaldson  v.  Eoks- 
ament,  170  F.  E.  192;  176  F.  E.  368; 
Donaldson  v.  Marbolith,  173  F.  E.  83; 
Emerson  v.  Simpson,  202  F.  E.  747. 
Making  tinted  asphalt  roofing.  Stand- 
ard Paint  v.  Bird,  175  F.  E.  346.  Curing 
rubber  by  steam.  Carew  v.  Boston,  1 
O.  G.  91.  Grinding  pulp  across  grain. 
Miller  v.  Androscoggin  Pulp,  1  O.  G. 
409.  Saturating  a  stone  by  forcing 
through,  differs  from  forcing  into.  Ean- 
some  v.  Norris,  2  O.  G.  295. 

47E.  Thomas  v.  Electric,  111  F.  E. 
923 ;  Victor  v.  American  Gramophone, 
189  F.  E.  359;  San  Francisco  v.  Beyrle, 


195  F.  E.  516;  Merrell  v.  Natural,  217 
F.  E.  578;  Cochrane  v.  Deener,  94  U. 
S.  780;  Klein  v.  Park,  13  O.  G.  5;  Ex 
parte  Frasch,  77  O.  G.  1427.  Compare 
Morton  v.  N.  Y.  Eye,  2  Fish.  320; 
Frankfort  Whiskey  v.  Mill  Creek,  37  F. 

E.  533;    Hake  v.  Brown,  37  F.  E.  783; 
but  see  44  F.  E.   283;    Maryland  Hom- 
iny v.  Baltimore,  46  F.  E.  773;    Watson 
v.  Stevens,  51  F.  E.  757.     Eolling  spiral- 
ly.   Simmonds  v.  Hathorn,  90  F.  E.  201 ; 
93  F.  E.  958.     To  regulate  temperature 
is  a  new  step,  even  if  only  in  a  new  way. 
Combustion  v.  Worcester,  190  F.  E.  155. 
The  new  step  may  be  only  part  of  an  old 
step.     Perkins  Glue  v.  Solva,  223  F.  E. 
792. 

48Bell  v.  Gray,  15  O.  G.  776;  Tilgh- 
man  v.  Proctor,  102  U.  S.  707.  Com- 
pare Goodyear  v.  Dunbar,  1  Fish.  472. 

49Universal  Brush  v.  Sonn,  154  F.  E. 
665;  U.  S.  Eepair  v.  Standard,  95  F.  E. 
137;  United  Tunnel  v.  Interborough,  207 

F.  E.   57;     International   Tooth  v.   Gay- 
lord,  140  U.  S.  55.    In  re  Butterfield,  108 
O.  G.  1589.     Kintner  v.  Atlantic,  230  F. 
E.  829;    National  Tube  v.  Spang,  125  F. 

E.  22;     135    F.    E.    351.      Thomson    v. 
Salem,  140  F.  E.  445;    Johnson  v.  Tide- 
water, 50  F.  E.  90.     A  blank  of  a  dif- 
ferent shape  to  start  with,  may  make  a 
new  step.     Clement  v.  Upson,  50  F.  E. 
538.     Mere  adjustment  of  a  well  known 
burner  is  not  patentable.   Penna.  v.  Cleve- 
land, .150   F.  E.  583. 

50Conroy  v.  Penn.,  155  F.  E.  421  ;    159 

F.  E.  943;    Farrel  v.  United  Verde,  121 
F.     E.     552 ;      Fried.     Krupp     v.     Mid- 
vale,   191    F.    E.    588;     Corning   v.   Bur- 
den,   12    How.    252;     Moulton    v.    Com. 
of   Patents,   61   O.    G.    1480;      Ex  parte 
Colton,    101    O.    G.    2285;     Dreyfus    v. 
Searle,  124  U.  S.  60;    Marchand  v.  Em- 
ken,   132  U.  S.   195;    Burr  v.   Cowperth- 
waite,  4  Blatschf.  163;    Eubber  v.  India, 
35  F.  E.  498;     Commercial  v.  Fairbank, 
27  F.  E.  78;    Eochester  v.  Schaefer,  46 
F.  E.  190.    Doing  in  a  single  machine  the 
old  steps  of  several  machines.     Appleton 


14 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


chine  instead  of  hand,  is50  not  patentable  unless  a  different51  kind  of 
result  is  obtained,  and  not  merely62  increased  or  beneficial  result. 

A  process  of  preserving  fish  which  turned  on  the  discovery  of  the 
properties  of  an  inner  skin  was53  patentable,  whereas  a  process  of  baling 
cotton  which  was  based  on  a  false  theory54  was  held  unpatentable.  A 
process  of  making  oils  or  heating  them  in  an  old  way  till  they  answered 
to  a  certain  flash  test  was  held55  patentable,  but  on  the  border  line  of 
patentability. 

Perhaps  the  clearest  discussion  of  unsuspected  properties  as  a  test 
of  novelty  is  found  in  the  decision  on  the  steel  tempering  patent  which 
was  held56  void  on  the  theory  that  the  alleged  novelty  merely  consisted 
in  carrying  forward  an  old  idea  to  increase  an  old  result.  It  should  be 
noted  that  the  court  held  the  patent 'would  have  been  valid  if  the  carrying 
forward  of  the  patented  process  to  a  less  degree  would  have  produced  a 
result  which  differed  from  the  old  result  in57  nature  rather  than  in  de- 
gree only.  Some  analogous  decisions  will  be  found  in  connection  with 
electrical58  patents. 


v.  Starr,  51  F.  R.  284;  60  F.  B.  411. 
For  degree  of  cooling  see,  in  re  Cbase,  146 
O.  G.  960. 

51Ex  parte  Champney,  60  O.  G.  1051; 
Musgrave  v.  Commr.  Patents,  78  O.  G. 
2047 ;  Byerley  v.  Barber,  230  F.  R.  995 ; 
1  ee  v.  Upson,  42  F.  R.  530;  43  F.  R. 
672;  Tannage  v.  Zahn,  66  F.  R.  986; 
70  F.  R.  1003;  Vaile  v.  Buckeye  Iron, 
55  F.  R.  652;  National  Elec.  Signal  v. 
United  Wireless,  189  F.  R,  727.  Extin- 
guishing fires  by  carbonic  charged  water 
patentable.  Graham  v.  Johnston  (Fire 
Kxtinguisher  Case),  21  F.  R.  40.  Imi- 
tation onyx  anticipated.  Arlington  v. 
Celluloid,  97  F.  R.  91.  Avoiding  a  seam 
\H  a  new  result.  Burdon  v.  Williams,  128 
F.  R.  927.  Rolling  prismatic  glass  is  not 
a  new  process  when  rolling  ribbed  glass  is 
old.  Daylight  v.  American,  142  F.  R. 
454.  But  compare  Pressed  Prism  v.  Con- 
tinuous, 150  F.  R.  355. 

52Bethlehem  v.  Niles,  166  F.  R.  880; 
Lumber  v.  Nestor,  178  F.  R.'927;  East- 
man v.  Getz,  84  F.  R.  458 ;  Alden  v. 
Brown,  24  F.  R.  787;  U.  S.  v.  Selma 
Fruit,  195  F.  R.  264;  Gilbert  v.  Watz- 
elham,  197  F.  R.  315;  Peters  v.  Chicago, 
200  F.  R,  774;  General  Elec.  v.  Butler, 
205  F.  R,  42;  Arnold  v.  Pettee,  3  App. 
Com.  Pats.  353;  BurrelJ  v.  Elgin,  96  F. 
R.  234.  But  see  U.  S.  Mitis  v.  Carnegie, 


89  F.  R.  343;  Wrapping  biscuits.  Union 
v.  Peters,  125  F.  R.  603. 

53Crowell  v.  Harlow,  1  F.  R.  140.  Com- 
pare,— utilizing  the  increased  gravity  of 
water  holding  suspended  starch,  to  sepa- 
rate hulls  from  germs  of  corn.  Chicago 
v.  Charles  Pope,  84  F.  R.  977. 

54Rembert  v.  American,  129  F.  R.  355. 
Compare  Cleveland  v.  Detroit,  131  F.  R. 
740.  Compare  Potthoff  v.  Hanson,  174 
F.  R.  983.  Compare  Lumber  v.  Nester, 
178  F.  R.  927.  Compare  Harrisburg  v. 
N.  Y.,  217  F.  R.  366.  Compare  Detmold 
v.  Reeves,  1  Fish.  127. 

55  Everest  v.  Buffalo  Lubricating,  20 
F.  R,  848;  22  F.  R.  252.  Compare 
Ex  parte  Campbell,  14  O.  G.  83. 

56Bethlehem  v.  Niles,  166  F.  R.  880. 
Compare  Hyde  v.  Minerals,  214  F.  R. 
100;  reversed  242  U.  S.  261.  Compare 
contra  General  Electric  v.  Hoskins,  224 
F.  R.  464.  Compare  Lovell  v.  Cary,  147 
U.  S.  622.  See  hat  knitting  and  finishing 
process.  Kahn  v.  Starrells,  131  F.  R. 
464;  reversed  135  F.  R.  532. 

57Compare  Allen  Evaporating  v.  Bow- 
en,  24  F.  R.  787.  Compare  Edison  v. 
Allis,  191  F.  R.  837.  Minerals  Separa- 
tion v.  Hyde,  242  U.  S.  261;  Minerals 
Separation  v.  Miami,  237  F.  R.  609. 

SSWestinghouse  Elec.  v.  Dayton,  106 
F.  R.  729.  A  method  of  operating  mo- 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


15 


In  other  arts  it  is  held  that  builders  house  interior  finish  prepared 
elsewhere  is  not59  patentable  over  the  ordinary  finish* built  in  place.  So 
using  a  "predetermined"  quantity  or  properly  "regulated"60  quantity 
is  not  a  patentably  new  process  so  far  as  definition  by  such  phrases  is 
concerned. 

While  the  result  obtained,  often  is  controlling61  in  deciding  patent- 
ability, a  process  even  though  producing  a  tangible  product  often  is 
patentable  though  its  product  is  not62  patentable,  or  apparently  not 
new  and63  vice  versa.  So  a  process  may  be  patentable  although 
all  its  steps  are  old  if  the  new  sequence  or  bringing  the  processes64 
together  produces  a  new  or  improved65  result.  Omitting  a  step  pre- 


tors  which  depends  on  a  hitherto  unuti- 
lized though  known  principle,  is  patent- 
able  and  construed  broadly.  Westing- 
house  v.  Stanley,  133  F.  R.  167 ;  Tesla  v. 
Scott,  97  F.  R.  585;  Dayton  v.  Westing- 
house,  188  F.  R.  562;  Westinghouse  v. 
N.  E.  Granite,  103  F.  R.  951;  Westing- 
house  v.  Electric,  133  F.  R.  396.  But  a 
patent  to  a  mere  electrical  theory  of  oper- 
ation is  void.  Manhattan  v.  Helios  Up- 
ton, 135  F.  R.  785. 

59Roehr  v.  Bliss,  82  F.  R.  445;  98  F. 
R.  120. 

60De  Lamar  v.  De  Lamar,  117  F.  R. 
240;  but  see  dissent.  Lauman  v.  Ur- 
schel,  136  F.  R.  190;  Burr  v.  Cowperth- 
waite,  4  Blatschf,  163;  Burr  v.  Duryee, 
1  Wall.  531.  Compare  Moore  Filter  v. 
Tonopah,  201  F.  R.  532.  Compare  in  re 
Coulton,  104  O.  G.  577.  But  to  use  all 
the  waves  in  wireless  telegraphy  was  pat- 
entable. Nat.  Elec.  Sig.  v.  United  Wire- 
less, 189  F.  R.  727.  Controlling  tempera- 
ture, etc.,  makes  new  process.  Combus- 
tion v.  Worcester  Gaslight,  190  F.  R. 
155.  A  .gentle  impact,  Chisholm  v. 
Johnson,  106  F.  R.  191;  reversed  115  F. 
R.  625.  But  see  dissent  and  Chisholm 
v.  Fleming,  133  F.  R.  924. 

SIGuarantee  v.  New  Haven  Gaslight, 
39  F.  R.  268;  Standard  Asphalt  v. 
American,  203  F.  R.  508;  Merrell  v. 
Powdered,  222  F.  R.  911;  Merrell  v. 
Natural,  222  F.  R.  913;  Western  Glass 
v.  Schmertz,  185  F.  R.  788.  Elimination 
of  troublesome  by-product.  Combustion 
v.  Worcester  Gaslight,  190  F.  R.  155. 
Better  sheets  of  celluloid.  Celluloid  v. 
Am.  Zylonite,  31  F.  R.  304.  Better  charg- 
ing with  carbon  dioxide.  Zinsser  v. 
Kremer,  39  F.  R.  111.  A  slight  modifi- 


cation of  an  old  process  is  patentable  if  it 
produces  a  new  result,  where  the  old 
process  was  not  workable  on  the  material. 
Ex  parte  McMurray,  8  O.  G.  473.  But 
compare  Ex  parte  Crecelius,  116  O.  G. 
2531;  Ex  parte  Paterson,  116  O.  G. 
2533.  Compare  in  re  Welch,  125  O.  G. 
2767.  For  infringement  see  Herzog  v. 
Keller,  234  F.  R.  85. 

62Tucker  v.  Sargent,  9  F.  R.  299 ;  Hake 
v.  Brown,  37  F.  R.  783;  Schwartz  v. 
Housman,  88  F.  R.  519;  R.  Thomas  v. 
Electric,  111  F.  R.  923.  Pressed  prism 
v.  Continuous,  150  F.  R.  355;  Fried. 
Krupp  v.  Midvale,  191  F.  R.  588 ;  Amer- 
ican Wood  Paper  v.  Fiber,  23  Wall. 
566. 

63Cottle  v.  Krementz,  31  F.  R.  42; 
Howe  v.  Abbott,  2  Robb.  99. 

64Making  silver  plated  iron  spoons.  Wal- 
lace v.  Noyes,  13  F.  R.  172.  But  not 
finishing  shoe  counters  by  molding  by 
each  of  two  old  processes.  Moffitt  v. 
Rogers,  8  F.  R.  147;  106  U.  S.  423; 
Moffitt  v.  Cavanagh,  17  F.  R.  336.  But 
not  if  the  new  step  is  in  effect  the  mere 
speeding  up  of  an  old  process.  High- 
land v.  Schmertz,  178  F.  R.  944.  Com- 
pare Schmertz  v,  Western,  178  F.  R. 
973;  178  F.  R.  977. 

65Wilcox  v.  Bookwalter,  31  F.  R.  224; 
N.  Y.  Grape  Sugar  v.  Buffalo,  18  F.  -R. 
638 ;  John  R.  Williams  v.  Miller,  107  F. 
R.  290 ;  Warren  Featherbone  v.  Ameri- 
can, 133  F.  R.  303  ;  German-Am,  v.  Loew, 
155  F.  R.  124;  164  F.  R.  855;  Edison 
v.  Allis,  191  F.  R.  837;  Moore  Filter  v. 
Tonopah,  201  F.  R.  532;  Safety  Armor- 
ite  v.  Mark,  207  F.  R.  351;  Mowry  v. 
Whitney,  14  Wall.  620;  Ex  parte  Perk- 
ins, 16  O.  G.  1098;  New  Process  v. 


16 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


viously  thought66  necessary  may  be  patentable.  In  other  words  each 
step  must  be  considered  in  the  light  of  other67  steps  and  not  if  it  stood 
alone.  Infringement  likewise  will  be  found  where  there  is  a  mere68  re- 
arrangement of  steps  provided  this  rearrangement  of  steps  does  not  de- 
pend on  a  new  theory  of  operation. 

The  wording  of  a  specification  may  be  controlling,  however,  in  de- 
termining the  identity69  of  processes  and  of  analogous  inventions,  espe- 
cially electrical70  inventions.  It  is  worth  noting  that  very  few  patents 
have  been  held  to  be  "aggregations"71  where  any  chemical  step  was  as- 
serted to  be  a  novel  feature  of  the  process,  or  the  ingredients  of  a  com- 
position had  any  chemical  relation  to  each  other.  A  method  of  book- 
keeping72 or  advertising  or  doing  business  seems  to  be  unpatentable,  but 
slight  "manufactures,"78  or  mechanical  aids  to  bookkeeping  have  been 
held  patentable  even  when  the  utility  largely  depended  on  the  fact  that 
these  aids  were  of  mental  utility. 


Maus,  122  U.  S.  413;  Uhlman  v.  Arn- 
holdt  and  Schaefer  Brewing  Co.,  53  F.  B. 
485;  Delaware  Metal  Refinery  v.  Wood- 
fall,  55  F.  R.  988 ;  Victor  'Talking  v. 
Am.  Gramophone,  189  F.  E.  359.  But 
the  steps  must  in  some  way  cooperate. 
Gloucester  Isinglass  v.  Le  Page,  30  F.  B. 
370.  But  not  if  the  process  is  obvious 
given  the  desired  result.  See  Electrical 
regulation.  General  Elec.  v.  Winona, 
188  F.  E.  77.  But  see  Westinghouse  v. 
Dayton,  106  F.  R.  729.  Pressing  and 
gluing  or  sawing  to  form  interlocks  in 
wood  pulleys  is  not  patentable.  Dodge 
v.  Collins,  106  F.  E.  935. 

66Lawther  v.  Hamilton,  124  U.  S.  1; 
Pacific  v.  Bingham,  62  F.  E.  281;  Bul- 
lock v.  Crocker,  141  F.  R.  101;  Contra 
Tompkins  v.  St.  Eegis,  226  F.  E.  744. 
But  not  where  omitted  in  an  analogous 
art.  Needham  v.  Washburn,  7  0.  G.  649. 
But  see  Smith  v.  Pittsburgh  Gas,  42  F. 
E.  145. 

67Moore  Filter  v.  Tonopah,  201  F.  E. 
532;  Mowry  v.  Whitney,  14  Wall.  620; 
Ex  parte  Katleyer,  57  O.  G.  1127;  Snow 
v.  Tapley,  13  0.  G.  548;  Ex  parte  Som- 
mer,  58  O.  G.  1255;  Ex  parte  Eudd,  68 
O.  G.  535.  Compare  Appert  v.  Schmertz, 
84  O.  G.  508.  Compare  Sadtler  v.  Car- 
michael  v.  Smith,  86  O.  G.  1498.  Ex- 
panded Metal  v.  Bradford,  214  U.  S. 
;>66;  In  re  Harris.  170  O.  G.  484.  Com- 
pare MacArthur  v.  Simplex,  230  F.  B. 
648;  Crescent  Brew.  v.  Gottfreid,  128 


U.   S.    158;     Barrow    v.    Wetherill,    Mac- 
Arthur,  315. 

68Downs  v.  Teter-Heany,  150  F.  R. 
122.  Gaunt  v.  United,  132  F.  R.  970. 
Rut  not  if  the  state  of  the  art  is  highly 
developed.  Boneless  v.  Roberts,  12  F.  R. 
627.  Nor  if  the  steps  are  alternately 
mechanical  and  chemical.  Tonopah  v. 
Vincent,  212  F.  B.  163. 

69Standard  Paint  v.  Bird,  218  F.  R. 
373;  Hide  Ite  v.  Fiber,  226  F.  R.  34; 
Klein  v.  Russell,  19  Wall.  433. 

70Thomson  Houston  v.  Wagner,  126  F. 
R.  170;  Weintraub  v.  Hewitt,  154  O.  0. 
254;  Kruh  v.  Thomas,  180  O.  G.  1396. 
71Ex  parte  Lowry,  1869  C.  D.  85;  Rice 
v.  Burt,  17  O.  G.  799;  In  re  Harris,  170 
O.  G.  484;  In  re  Merrill,  199  O.  G.  61S; 
vv'ilson  v.  Hunter,  150  U.  S.  566;  U.  S. 
Repair  v.  Assyrian,  100  F.  R.  965  See 
dissenting  opinion  in  Chicago  v.  Charles 
Pope,  84  F.  E.  977.  Electrical  distribut- 
ing system  held  aggregation.  Salem  v. 
Thomson,  144  F.  El  974.  But  see  West- 
inghouse v.  Allis,  176  F.  B,  352. 

72Berardini  v.  Tocci,  190  F.  B.  329; 
Hotel  v.  Lorraine,  155  F.  B.  298;  160 
F.  R.  467;  Ex  parte  Berolzheimer,  1870 
C.  D.  33;  Ex  parte  Turner,  66  O.  G. 
1593;  Ex  parte  Moeser,  118  O.  G.  590; 
123  O.  G.  655;  In  re  Tallmadge,  174 
O.  G.  1219;  Ex  parte  Dixon,  Fed.  Cas. 
3927;  Ex  parte  Bierce,  11  O.  G.  1108. 
73J0hnson  v.  Johnson,  60  F.  R.  618. 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


17 


Under  the  United  States  patent  laws  it  seems  settled  that  merely 
utilizing  waste  material  is  not74  patentable  unless  the  steps  in  such 
utilization  are  patentably  new  in  themselves.  Such  a  holding  is  prob- 
ably a  development  of  the  doctrine  that  it  is  not  patentable  to  apply  an 
old78  process  to  material  analogous  to  that  formerly  used  in  the  old 
process ;  or  use  analogous  materials76  on  an  old  substance. 


74Beforging  worn  wheels.  Hansen  v. 
Slick,  216  F.  B.  164;  230  F.  E.  627;  In 
re  Maule,  Mac  Arthur,  271. 

75New  Process  Fermentation  v.  Koch, 
21  F.  E.  508;  Gloucester  Isinglass  v. 
Le  Page,  30  F.  E.  370;  Phillips  v. 
Kochert,  31  F.  E.  39 ;  Zinsser  v.  Krueg- 
er,  48  F.  E.  296 ;  Bainbridge  v.  Kitchell, 
57  F.  E.  231;  Union  Paper  Bag  v. 
Waterburj,  58  F.  E.  566;  Bowman  v. 
De  Grauw,  60  F.  E.  907;  Fry  v.  Bock- 
wood,  90  F.  E.  494;  101  F.  E.  723;  Gen- 
eral Electric  v.  Yost,  139  F.  E.  568;  Eis- 
enstein  v.  Fibiger,  160  F.  E.  686;  Bet- 
tendorf  v.  J.  A.  Little,  123  F.  E.  433; 
Wolff  v.  E.  I.  Du  Pont,  134  F.  E.  863; 
Tompkins  v.  St.  Eegis,  226  F.  E.  744; 
Union  Paper  Collar  v.  Van  Deusen,  23 
Wall.  530;  Ex  parte  Howell,  9  O.  G. 
921;  Brown  v.  Piper,  91  U.  S.  37;  Hutt- 
ner  v.  Knox,  14  O.  G.  118;  Slade  v. 
Blair,  17  O.  G.  261;  Ansonia  Brass  v. 
Electrical,  144  U.  S.  11;  Lovell  v.  Gary, 
147  U.  S.  623;  In  re  Luten,  143  O.  G. 
1110;  In  re  Blackmore,  145  O.  G.  258; 
Kennedy  v.  Beaver,  232  F.  E.  477;  Wa- 
terman v.  Thomson,  2  Fish.  461.  Cut- 
ting wood  anticipates  sawing  diamonds. 
Wood  v.  Kahn,  189  F.  E.  400 ;  198  F.  E. 
403.  Making  rail  joints.  Falk  v.  Mis- 
souri, 103  F.  E.  295.  Water  cooling  a 
saw  cutting  celluloid  is  anticipated  by 
ordinary  water  cooling  tools.  Celluloid 
v.  Noyes,  25  F.  E.  319.  Besetting  teeth 
in  old  card  clothing.  Brummit  v.  How- 
ard, 3  F.  E.  801.  But  cigarette  making 
is  not  analagous  to  fuse  making,  etc. 
Bonsack  v.  Elliot,  63  F.  E.  835 ;  69  F.  E. 
335;  73  F.  E.  834;  nor  smelting  alum- 
inum to  ordinary  electrolysis.  Pittsburg 
v.  Cowles,  64  F.  E.  125.  But  soda  water 
is  to  beer.  Zinsser  v.  Krueger,  45  F.  B. 
572.  Leather  not  analogous  to  gelatine. 
Tannage  v.  Zahn,  70  F.  E.  1003;  Adams 
v.  Tannage,  81  F.  E.  178;  Tannage  v. 
Donallen,  93  F.  E.  811.  Polishing  nuts 
by  tumbling.  Pratt  v.  Thompson,  83  F. 
E.  516.  Precipitating  refuse  "tank 
water."  National  v.  Swift,  104  F.  E. 
87;  National  v.  American,  135  F.  E.  809. 


But  treating  a  complex  dyewood  extract 
is  patentable  over  treating  the  pure  dye. 
Hemolin  v.  Harway,  138  F.  E.  54.  But 
a  different  problem  makes  the  analogy 
disappear.  National  Enameling  v.  N. 
E.,  139  F.  E.  643.  Old  process  of  heat- 
ing vapor  lamp,  not  new  because  now  a 
Welsbach  mantle  is  used.  Pennsylvania 
v.  Cleveland,  140  F.  E.  348.  Grinding 
and  winnowing  coffee  not  patentable. 
Baker  v.  Buncombe,  146  F.  E.  745.  Type- 
writing a  new  stencil  sheet  is  not  a  new 
process.  A.  B.  Dick  v.  Henry,  160  F.  E. 
690.  Bleaching  flour  is  not  analogous  to 
oil.  Naylor  v.  Alsop,  168  F.  E.  911. 
Soda  Water  analogous  to  beer.  Golden 
Gate  v.  Newark,  130  F.  E.  112.  A  flat 
sound  record  is  not  analogous  to  a  disk 
one.  American  Gramophone  v.  Universal, 
151  F.  E.  595.  Working  on  natural  in- 
stead of  artificial  teeth.  Carmichael  v. 
Jackson,  192  F.  E.  937.  Treating  cement 
is  not  analogous  to  paper  making.  As- 
bestos v.  H.  W.  Johns,  184  F.  E.  620 ;  As- 
bestos v.  Eock,  217  F.  E.  66.  Nor  is 
salt  to  milk.  Merrell  v.  Powdered  milk, 
215  F.  E.  922;  222  F.  E.  911;  Merrell 
v.  Natural,  222  F.  E.  913.  Merely  soft- 
ening a  material  to  fill  a  cavity  is  not 
patentable.  North  American  Chemical  v. 
Keno,  227  F.  E.  63.  A  ear  wheel  is  not 
analogous  to  other  castings  in  annealing. 
Mowry  v.  Whitney,  14  Wall.  620.  But 
casting  a  stove  cover  is  analogous.  Ex 
parte  Little,  1869  C.  D.  35.  Cutting  a 
paper  collar  out  of  sheets  just  the  right 
size  and  in  a  way  common  to  linen,  not 
patentable.  Snow  v.  Taylor,  14  O.  G. 
861.  Nor  to  apply  to  a  specific  metal  a 
process  old  to  a  group.  Mond  v.  Comr. 
Pats.,  91  O.  G.  1437.  Compare  Busch  v. 
Jones,  184  U.  S.  599.  Compare  Morton  v. 
N.  Y.  Eye,  2  Fish.  230.  But  see  Poillon 
v.  Schmidt,  3  Fish.  476. 

76Electric  Boot  v.  Little,  138  F.  E. 
732;  Ohio  Varnish  v.  Glidden,  215  F.  B. 
902;  In  re  Chase,  135  O.  G.  895;  West- 
ern v.  Ansonia,  114  U.  S.  447;  Miller 
v.  Foree,  116  U.  S.  22.  But  see  Bum- 
ford  v.  Hecker,  3  O.  G.  353. 


18 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


A  process  is  not  patentable  till  means  have  been  invented  capable  of 
carrying  it  out,  and  these  means  must  be  obvious  from  the  prior  art  or 
adequately  described  in  the77  specification.  All  claims  must  be  based  on 
the  nomenclature  of  the78  specification  and  the  tests  set  up  therein  are 
vital.  Conversely  a  process  patent  is  not  anticipated  merely  because  a 
/device79  existed,  and  might  have  been  used  to  carry  it  out,  or  by  a 
machine  incapable  of  completely80  carrying  out  a  process,  or  by  a  de- 
scription unless  the  description  is81  clear  and  exact  enough  to  enable 


77Downton  v.  Yeager  Milling,  1  F.  B. 
199;  Libbey  v.  Mt.  Washington  Glass 
26  F.  E.  757;  Celluloid  v.  Eussell,  37 
F.  E.  676;  Kennedy  v.  Solar,  69  F.  E, 
716;  National  Chemical  v.  Swift,  100  F. 
K.  451;  Matheson  v.  Campell,  78  F.  E. 
910.  The  utility  must  be  commercial  or 
the  patent  will  be  construed  narrowly. 
Donner  v.  Am.  Sheet,  165  F.  E.  199 ;  Bal- 
lou  v.  Potter,  110  F.  E.  969;  Standard 
Paint  v.  Bird,  175  F.  E.  346;  Freid. 
Krupp  v.  Midvale,  191  F.  E.  588 ;  Peters 
v.  Chicago  Biscuit,  200  F.  E.  774;  Wood 
v.  Underbill,  5  How.  1;  Klein  v.  Eus- 
sell, 19  Wall.  433;  Andrews  v.  Carman, 
9  O.  G.  1011;  Kilbourne  v.  Bingham,  50 

F.  E.   697;     Stevens  v.  Seher,   81   O.   G. 
1932;    In  re  Blackmore,  140  O.  G.  1209; 
Expanded  Metal  v.  Bradford,  214  U.  S. 
366;     Western    v.    Ansonia,    114    U.    S. 
447;     Lawther   v.    Hamilton,    124   U.   S. 
1;    Bene  v.  Jeantet,  129  U.  S.  683;    Al- 
len v.  Hunter,  6  McLean,  303;    Detmold 
v.    Eeeves,    1    Fish.    127;     Goodyear    v. 
Wait,    3    Fish.    242;     Gold   v.    U.    S.,   3 
Fish.    489.      In    a    manufacture.      A.    E. 
Mosler  v.  Lurie,  200  F.  B.  433.     Propor- 
tions in  a  composition.     Francis  v.  Mel- 
lor,  1  O.  G.  48.     But  dies  from  the  prior 
art  cannot  be  read  into  the  specification. 
Ex  parte  Ingersoll,  15  O.  G.  389.     Com- 
pare  ex   parte    Barney,    53    O.    G.    1569. 
Compare  Marconi  v.   Shoemaker,   131   O. 

G.  1939.     Compare  Townsend  v.  Thullen, 
142    O.   G.    1116.      Compare   in   re   Mraz, 
164    O.    G.    978.      Compare    Slingluff    v. 
Bolin,  182  O.  G.  720;    182  O.  G.  975. 

78Smith  v.  Murray,  27  F.  E,  69;  Chem- 
ical v.  Eaymond,  68  F.  E.  570;  71  F.  E. 
179;  Westinghouse  v.  Montgomery,  153 
F.  E.  880;  Arnold  v.  Phelps,  20  F.  E. 
315;  Matheson  v.  Campbell,  78  F.  E. 
910.  Tests  are  to  be  interpreted  in  light 
of  common  sense;  stability  is  good  test 
though  not  true  if  pushed  to  the  limit. 
"Practically  free"  though  still  some- 


what crude.     Parke  Davis  v.  II.  K.  Mul- 
ford,   189   F.   B.   95. 

79Clinton  v.  Wright,  65  F.  E.  425; 
Loew  v.  German  American,  164  F.  B. 
855;  Karfiol  v.  Eothner,  165  F.  B.  923; 
Cochrane  v.  Deener,  94  U.  S.  780;  Bruff 
v.  Ives,  11  O.  G.  924;  Carnegie  v.  Cam- 
bria, 185  U.  S.  425;  New  Process  v. 
Maus,  122  U.  S.  412;  Graham  v.  John- 
ston (Fire  Extinguisher  Case),  21  F.  E. 
40;  Frankfort  Whiskey  v.  Mill  Creek,  37 
F.  E.  533;  Chase  v.  Fillebrown,  58  F. 

E.  374.     Compare  Appleton  v.  Ecaubert, 
62  F.  E.  742;    67  F.  E.  917.     A  fabric 
is   not   anticipated   by    a   machine   which 
might  have  been  used  to  make  it.     Gen- 
eral Knit  v.  Steber,  194  F.  E,  99. 

SOVermont  Farm  v.  Gibson,  46  F.  B. 
488;  Chisholm  v.  Fleming,  133  F.  B. 
924;  Chisholm  v.  Eandolph,  135  F.  B. 
815;  Chisholm  v.  Canastota,  135  F.  B. 
816;  Uhlman  v.  Arnholdt  and  Schaefer, 
53  F.  B.  485.  Sizing  machine  lacking 
doctor  bar  did  not  anticipate  waxing 
process.  Hammerschlag  v.  Scamoni,  7 

F.  B.  584.     Hammerschlag  v.  Garrett,  9 
F.  B.  43.    But  the  process  of  the  machine 
need  not   have  been   absolutely   identical 
to     constitute    anticipation, — curing    fish 
anticipated     pasteurizing     beer.       Model 
Bottling  v.    Anheuser   Busch,    190    F.   B. 
573.     Where  a  patent  was  for  the  process 
of    using    certain    dies,    and    these    were 
proved   in   prior   use,   the   process   patent 
is  void.     Gunn  v.  Savage,  25  F.  E.  101. 
A  storage  battery  element  is  not  antici- 
pated by   an   unsuccessful   device.      Elec- 
tric Storage  v.   Philadelphia,   211    F.   B. 
15.     But  the  discovery  of  the  true  opera- 
tive theory  does  not  make  an  old  process 
patentable.      In    re   Moulton,    191    O.    G. 
588;     and    in    re    Chapman,    198    O.    G. 
240. 

SICameron  v.  Village,  159  F.  B.  453; 
Byerly  v.  Cleveland,  31  F.  B.  73;  Daniel 
Green  v.  Dolgeville,  210  F.  B,  164;  Mer- 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


19 


those  skilled  in  the  art  to  obtain  commercially  the  desired  result.  Neither 
is  an  abandoned82  experiment  an  anticipation.  Biit  a  process  is  not 
patentable  if  its  novelty  resides  only  in  using  devices  old  in83  analogous 


roll  v.  Powdered  Milk,  215  F.  K.  922; 
General  Electric  v.  Hoskins,  224  F.  R. 
464 ;  Roberts  v.  Dickey,  1  O.  G.  4 ;  Jenk- 
ins v.  Walker,  1  O.  G.  359;  Muntz  v. 
Foster,  2  Web.  93;  Cahill  v.  Brown,  15 
O.  G.  697;  Atlantic  Giant  v.  Rand,  16 
O.  G.  87;  Atlantic  Giant  v.  Parker,  16 
O.  G.  495;  Colgate  v.  Gold,  16  O.  G. 
583;  Steward  v.  American  Lava,  215 
TT.  S.  161;  In  re  Decker,  162  O.  G.  999; 
Downton  v.  Yaeger,  108  U.  S.  466;  By- 
erley  v.  Barber,  230  F.  R.  995;  Toch  v. 
Zibell,  231  F.  R.  711;  233  F.  R.  993; 
Eames  v.  Andrews,  122  U.  S.  40 ;  United 
Nickel  v.  Manhattan,  4  Ban.  and  A.  173 ; 
Ex  parte  Steinmetz,  224  0.  G.  363; 
Hood  v.  Boston,  21  F.  R.  67;  Graham 
v.  Johnston  (Fire  Extinguisher  Case), 
21  F.  R.  40;  Jensen  v.  Keasbey,  24  F. 
R.  144 ;  Guarantee  v.  New  Haven  Gas- 
Light,  39  F.  R.  268;  Cary  v.  Lovell,  31 
F.  R.  344;  Electric  Accum.  v.  Julien,  38 
F.  R.  117;  Chase  v.  Fillebrown,  58  F.  R. 
374;  Uhlmann  v.  Bartholomge,  41  F.  R. 
132;  53  F.  R.  485;  German  American 
v.  Erdrich,  98  F.  R.  300 ;  Bowers  v.  Von 
Schmidt,  80  F.  R.  122;  Bowers  v.  San 
Francisco,  91  F.  R.  381;  Westinghouse 
v.  Saranac,  108  F.  R.  221;  Dickerson  v. 
Maurer,  108  F.  R.  233;  Burdon  v.  Wil- 
liams, 128  F.  R.  927;  Gottfried  v.  Cres- 
cent Brewing.  9  F.  R.  762;  reversed  13 
F.  R,  479;  Pittsburgh  Reduction  Co.  v. 
Cowles  Elec.  Smelt.,  55  F.  R.  301; 
Blakesley  Novelty  v.  Connecticut  Web, 
78  F.  R.  480.  See  Emerson  v.  Simpson 
Bros.,  188  F.  R.  808;  202  F.  R.  747; 
German  American  Filter  v.  Loew  Filter, 
103  F.  R.  303;  Globe  Nail  v.  U.  S. 
Horse  Nail,  19  F.  R.  819;  but  see  Globe 
Xail  v.  Superior,  27  F.  R.  450.  A  testing 
apparatus  does  not  anticipate  using  the 
apparatus  for  a  particular  purpose.  Ev- 
erest v.  Buffalo  Lubricating,  20  F.  R. 
848.  But  a  prior  description  is  suffi- 
cient if  it  discloses  all  that  the  patent 
discloses.  Sewall  v.  Jones,  91  U.  S.  171. 
A  patent  showing  the  result  from  which 
it  takes  only  mechanical  skill  to  deduce 
process  anticipates.  Ex  parte  Wheeler, 
4  O.  G.  3.  But  a  description  may  be  suf- 
ficient in  view  of  the  state  of  the  art. 
Cohen  v.  U.  S.  Corset,  93  U.  S.  366. 
Compare  Deprez  v.  Bernstein  v.  Hunter 


v.  Gaulard,  54  O.  G.  1711.  Compare 
Macbeth  Evans  v.  General  Elec.,  231  F. 
R.  183.  For  a  sufficient  anticipation  see 
Stuart  v.  Auger,  139  F.  R.  935.  But 
great  detail  is  not  needed.  Malignani 
v.  Jaseph  Marsh,  180  F.  R.  442;  Ger- 
man American  v.  Loew,  103  F.  R.  303. 
In  compositions.  Badische  v.  Kalle,  104 
F.  R.  802.  In  a  composition  novelty  is 
found,  if  the  tests  indicate  novelty. 
Maurer  v.  Dickerson,  113  F.  R.  870.  A 
description  in  a  prior  patent  is  antici- 
pation even  if  the  patentee  never  car- 
ried it  out.  Spill  v.  Celluloid,  22  F.  R. 
94.  A  description  of  a  process  in  a 
machine  patent,  may  be  complete.  Model 
Bottling  v.  Anheuser  Busch,  190  F.  R. 

573.  A   ''paper"   patent  if   clear  is   a 
complete    anticipation.      Hyde   v.    Miner- 
als, 214  F.  R.  100;    but  see  Minerals  v. 
Hyde,  237  F.  R.  609. 

82R.  Thomas  v.  Electric,  111  F.  R, 
923;  Maurer  v.  Dickerson,  113  F.  R. 
870;  Westinghouse  v.  Beacon,  95  F.  R. 
462 ;  Gloucester  v.  Brooks,  19  F.  R.  426 ; 
Chadeloid  v.  Thurston,  220  F.  R.  685; 
Gayler  v.  Wilder,  10  How.  477;  Am. 
Wood  Paper  v.  Fibre,  23  Wall.  566;  Rob- 
erts v.  Dickey,  1  O.  G.  4;  Waterman  v. 
Thomson,  2  Fish.  461.  But  frequent  use 
is  not  an  abandoned  experiment.  Hent- 
schel  v.  Carthage,  169  F.  R.  114. 

83Fry  v.  Rockwood,  90  F.  R.  494;  Hall 
v.  Ahrend,  110  F.  R.  375;  114  F.  R. 
747;  Young  v.  Burley,  200  F.  R.  258; 
Spirella  v.  Nubone,  216  F.  R.  898;  Ex 
parte  Lowe,  1870  C.  D.  39;  Vinto-n  v. 
Hamilton,  104  U.  S.  485;  Ritter  v.  At- 
lanta, 234  F.  R.  896;  Dreyfus  v.  Searle, 
124  IT.  S.  60;  Royden  Marble  v.  Davis, 

189  F.  R.  622;    Marchand  v.  Emken,  26 
F.  R.  629.     Or  using  more  convenient  de- 
vices.    Phillips  v.  Kochert,  31  F.  R.  39. 
An   anticipation  need   not  include  every 
minor  step.    Model  Bottling  v.  Anheuser, 

190  F.  R.  573.    Old  apparatus  handled  in 
a  new  way  does  not  create  a  new  process 
if  the  theory  is  old.    Siemund  v.  Endelin, 
206  F.  R.  283.     Sand  blast  is  not  analo- 
gous to  driving  cows  off  track  with  blast 
of  steam.     Tilghman  v.  Morse,   1   O.   G. 

574.  Compare   Hoyt   v.    Home,    145    U. 
S.  302. 


20 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


steps.  In  other  words  an  invention  or  the  anticipation  of  an  invention 
does  not  really  exist  till  reduced  to  practical84  form,  ncr  until  the 
utility86  of  the  result  is  realized.  If,  however,  the  process  has  been  de 
facto  practiced  regularly,  even  though86  accidentally,  it  is  anticipated. 
Perfect  operation,  however,  is  not  necessary  to  give  validity  to  a  specifi- 
cation, though  the  directions  must  produce  the  desired  result,  but87 
errors  (not  vital)  may  be  ignored. 

A  process  is  not  new  because  applied  to  new88  material  unless  the 


84Gloucester  Isinglass  v.  Brooks,  19 
F.  R.  426;  Damon  v.  Eastwick,  14  F.  R. 
40;  Gage  v.  Kellogg,  23  F.  R.  891; 
Wickelraan  v.  A.  B.  Dick,  88  F.  R,  264; 
Burdon  v.  Williams,  128  F.  R.  927.  It 
is  not  reduced  to  practice  by  an  experi- 
ment which  is  unsatisfactory  to  the  in- 
ventor. Atlantic  Giant  v.  Dittmar,  1  F. 
R.  328.  But  abandonment  of  experiment 
does  not  prove  unsuccessful  results. 
Royer  v.  Chicago,  20  F.  R.  853.  For 
reduction  to  practice.  Celluloid  v.  Cro- 
fut,  24  F.  R.  796.  A  useless  hand  made 
anticipation  does  not  defeat  a  valuable 
patent.  Lamb  v.  Hamblen,  11  F.  R.  722 
Commercial  use  unnecessary.  U.  S.  v 
Edison,  51  F.  R.  24.  Making  a  small 
quantity,  but  all  needed,  is  not  abandon- 
ment. U.  S.  Mineral  v.  Manville,  125  F. 
R.  770.  Nor  anticipated.  Baker  Lead 
v.  National,  135  F.  R.  546.  Experi- 
mental character  of  use  is  negatived  by 
nine  years  work  producing  thousands  of 
articles.  National  v.  Lambert,  142  F. 
R.  164. 

85Baker  Lead  v.  National,  135  F.  R. 
546;  Dorian  v.  Guie,  25  F.  R.  816; 
Carnegie  v.  Cambria,  185  U.  S.  425;  John 
v.  Columbia  Cotton,  179  F.  R.  231;  Ajax 
v.  Brady,  155  F.  R.  409;  Johnson  v. 
Chisholm,  115  F.  R,  625;  but  see  dissent, 
and  Chisholm  v.  Randolph,  135  F.  R. 
815;  Roberts  v.  Schreiber,  2  F.  R,  855. 
But  mere  realizing  the  utility  of  the 
process  does  not  maKe  it  patentable. 
Amer.  Mercerizing  v.  Hampton,  147  F. 
R.  725.  But  seeing  a  new  utility  in  an 
old  process  does  not  make  that  process 
patentable.  Ansonia  v.  Electrical,  32  F. 
R.  81.  Accidental  use  no  anticipation. 
Boyd  v.  Cherry,  50  F.  R.  279.  So  also  a 
product  is  not  patentable  which  is  not 
new,  though  it  was  only  occasionally  pro- 
duced before.  American  v.  Bridgewater, 
132  F.  R.  16.  Compare  Carborundum  v. 
Electric,  203  F.  R.  976.  Compare  West- 


inghouse  v.  Montgomery,  153  F.  R.  890. 
But  compare  Heroult  v.  Comr.  of  Pats., 
70  O.  G.  784.  But  see  in  re  Kemper, 
MacArthur  1. 

86Tilghman  v.  Proctor,  102  U.  S.  707; 
Warren  v.  Evans,  234  F.  R.  657;  Pitts- 
burgh Reduction  v.  Cowles  Elec.  Smelt., 
55  F.  R.  301.  But  see  Parke  Davis  v.  H. 
K.  Mulford,  189  F.  R.  95;  Chisholm  v. 
Johnson,  106  F.  R.  191;  Roberts  v. 
Schreiber,  2  F.  R.  855;  Dorian  v.  Guie, 
25  F.  R.  816;  Libbey  v.  Mt.  Washing- 
ton Glass,  26  F.  R,  757.  So  also  of  a 
composition,  a  sidewalk  experiment  does 
not  defeat  later  road  composition.  War- 
ren v.  Owosso,  166  F.  R.  309.  For  a  com- 
position. Munising  v.  American  Sulphite 
228  F.  R.  700.  Compare  Richardson  v. 
Leidgen,  77  O.  G.  153. 

87Malignani  v.  Jasper  Marsh,  180  F. 
R.  442;  Michaelis  v.  Roessler,  34  F.  R. 
325.  Describing  the  use  of  glycerine 
which  cannot  oe  used  is  mere  surplusage. 
McKesson  v.  Carnrick,  9  F.  R.  44.  See 
Matheson  v.  Campbell,  78  F.  R.  910. 
Error  of  observation,  not  repudiating 
identity  may  be  corrected  in  a  division 
of  an  erroneous  original.  Parke  Davis  v. 
H.  K.  Mulford,  189  F.  R,  95.  But  an 
erroneous  self -contradictory  theory  is 
fatal.  Potthoff  v.  Hanson,  174  F.  R. 
983.  So  also  is  describing  a  utility  which 
applies  in  cases  where  the  patentable 
novelty  is  missing.  Andrews  v.  Car- 
man, 9  O.  G.  1011. 

88Knox  Rock-Blasting  v.  Drake,  53  F. 
R.  790;  Blakesley  Novelty  v.  Connec- 
ticut Web,  78  F.  R.  480;  Wood  v. 
Kahn,  189  F.  R,  400;  198  F.  R.  430; 
Phillips  v.  Kochert,  31  F.  R.  39;  Lee  v. 
Upson,  42  F.  R.  530;  43  F.  R.  670;  Cel- 
luloid v.  Russell,  37  F.  R.  676;  U.  S. 
Repair  v.  Standard,  87  F.  R.  339 ;  Ballon 
v.  Potter,  110  F.  R,  969;  Young  v. 
Burley,  200  F.  R.  258;  Miller  v.  Force, 
116  U.  S.  22;  Crescent  Brew.  v.  Gott- 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


21 


new  application  is  revolutionary.  The  difficulty  of  applying  this  distinc- 
tion is  well  illustrated  in  the  various  decisions  on  bleaching89  pyroxlyn, 
though  others  are  pertinent. 

Closely  allied  to  this  question,  is  the  question  of  what  are  equiva- 
lent90 elements.  This  problem  of  equivalents  is  extremely  perplexing 
both  in  questions91  of  novelty  and  in  questions  of  infringement.  The 


fried,  128  U.  S.  158;  Pike  v.  Porter,  3 
Fish.  55.  Improving  flow  of  oil  wells  by 
blasting  under  a  water  tamping, — valid. 
Roberts  v.  Schreiber,  2  F.  E.  855.  Process 
of  using  ivory  anticipates  celluloid.  Cel- 
luloid v.  Tower,  26  F.  E.  451.  But  creat- 
ing a  new  art  is  revolutionary.  Tannage 
v.  Zahn,  70  F.  E.  1003;  Tannage  v. 
Adams,  77  F.  E.  191.  Casting  wrought 
iron  is  revolutionary.  U.  S.  Mitis  v.  Mid- 
vale,  135  F.  E.  103.  See  also  National 
Enameling  v.  N.  E.,  139  F.  E.  643. 
Bleaching  walnuts  is  revolutionary.  Ful- 
lerton  v.  Anderson,  166  F.  E.  443.  Clean- 
ing clay  anticipates  cleaning  rubber. 
Cowen  v.  Boston,  214  F.  E.  806.  Malt 
is  not  beer.  Wallerstein  v.  Liebmann, 
215  F.  E.  915.  Making  palatable  pow- 
dered milk  is  patentably  new  process. 
Merrell  v.  Powdered  Milk,  215  F.  E.  922 ; 
Merrell  v.  Natural,  217  F.  E.  578. 

89Spill  v.  Celluloid,  2  F.  E.  707;  re- 
versed Spill  v.  Celluloid,  21  F.  E.  631. 

90Spill  v.  Celluloid,  2  F.  E.  707;  re- 
versed 21  F.  E.  631;  22  F.  E.  94;  Bruff 
v.  Ives,  11  O.  G.  924;  Schillinger  v. 
Gunther,  16  O.  G.  909;  Ex  parte  Wol- 
tereck,  150  O.  G.  1041;  151  O.  G.  451; 
Fullerton  v.  Anderson,  166  F.  E.  443; 
Western  v.  Schmertz,  185  F.  E.  788; 
Goodwin  v.  Eastman,  213  F.  E.  231; 
Salts  Textile  v.  Tingue,  227  F.  E.  115; 
Westrumite  Co.  v.  Lincoln  Park,  174  F. 
R.  144;  Lange  v.  McGuin,  177  F.  E. 
219;  Matteawan  v.  Emmons,  185  F.  E. 
814;  Cleveland  Target  v.  U.  S.  Pigeon, 
52  F.  E.  385;  Byerley  v.  Ellis,  190  F. 

E.  772;    Gunn  v.  Savage,  25  F.  E.  101; 
Byerley  v.  Standard  Asphalt,   189  F.  E. 
759;    Crown  Cork  v.  Brooklyn,  190  F.  E. 
323;    Ferro  v.  Concrete,  206  F.  E,  666; 
Jones  v.  Merrill,   8   O.   G.  401;     Muscan 
Hair  v.   American,    1   Fish.   320;     In   re 
Braemer,  215  O.  G.  323 ;    Wilson  v.  Hunt- 
er,  105  U.  S.  566;    Mac  Arthur  v.  Sim- 
plex, 230  F.  E.  648;    Byertey  v.  Barber, 
230  F.  E.  995 ;    Zimmerman  v.  Advance, 
232   F.   E.   866;     Herzog  v.    Keller,   234 

F.  E.  85;    Tompkins  v.  St.  Eegis,  236  F. 


E.  221;     Bump's   v.   Gessler,   236   F.   E. 
242;    Commercial  v.  Fairbank,  133  U.  S. 
176;    Allen  v.  Alter,  3  App.  Com.  Pats. 
322;     Goodyear    v.    Central    Eailroad,    1 
Fish.  626;    Popenhusen  v.  N.   Y.  Gutta, 
2  Fish.  80;    Gottfried  v.  Stahlmann,   13 

F.  E.  673;    Hammerschlag  v.  Wood,   18 
F.  E.  175;    Elec.  Accumulator  v.  N.  Y., 
40  F.  E.  328;    Smith  v.  Pittsburgh  Gas, 
42  F.  E.  145;    Holiday  v.  Pickhardt,  29 
F.  E.   853;     Elec.   Accum.   v.   Julien,   38 

F.  E.    117.     Making   oily    sawdust   with 
too    little    oil    to    stain,    see    dissenting 
opinion.     Cotto  Waxo  v.  Perolin,  185  F. 
E.  267.     Etching  is  not  the  same  as  cut- 
ting.     Victor    Talking    v.    Am.    Gramo- 
phone,   189    F.   E.    359.     Heating   coffee 
with   steam  is   not  the   same   as   heating 
so  that  the  coffee  produces   steam.     Ar- 
nold v.   Phelps,   20  F.  E.   315.     Making 
part  of  keyboard  with  continuous  strips, 
infringes  patent  for  whole  keyboard.  Cel- 
luloid v.  Pratt,  21  F.  E.  313;    overruled 
Celluloid  v.  Tower,  26  F.  E.  451,  which 
held    that    in    such    a   process   ivory   was 
equivalent   of   celluloid.     Compare  Cellu- 
loid v.  Comstock,  27  F.  E.  358.     Naming 
a  maximum   temperature   does   not   limit 
the  patent  to  that.     Mowry  v.  Whitney, 
14   Wall.   620.     Methods   of  heating   as- 
phalt for  repair,  see  U.  S.  v.  Assyrian,  183 
U.  S.  591.    For  non  equivalent  claims  sec, 
ex  parte  Eeese,  113  O.  G.  849.     Compare 
in  interference,  Wood  v.  Duncan,  183  O. 

G.  1033.     Compare  Wilson  v.   Ellis,   211 
O.  G.  286,  and    211  O.  G.  957.     An  im- 
proved old  hand  process  does  not  infringe 
what    is    essentially    a    machine    process. 
Hammerschlag  v.  Wichelmann,  38  F.  E. 
430.      Old    art    determines   infringement. 
Edison  v.  Klaber,  38  F.  E.  744.     Casting 
and  dipping  wax  are  equivalent,  but  ex- 
panding to  fit  and  casting  are  not.     Na- 
tional v.  American,  135  F.  E.  809. 

91Western  v.  Schmertz,  185  F.  E.  788. 
Talc  may  avoid  a  patent  covering  moist 
sand.  Emerson  v.  Simpson,  214  F.  E. 
572.  Using  dies  working  differently 
avoids  infringement.  Clark  v.  Kennedy, 


22 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


whole  answer  often  depends  on  the  prior  art,  and  often  cannot  be  de- 
cided only  on92  affidavits  for  preliminary  injunction  or  demurrer.  An 
equivalent  of  a  substance  or  step  is  another  having  substantially  the 
same93  effect,  but  identity  of  ultimate  results  of  course  does  not  always 


11  O.  G.  67.  But  see  Peters  v.  Active, 
130  U.  S.  626;  Hoff  v.  Iron  Clad,  139 
U.  S.  362;  Plummer  v.  Sargent,  120 
U.  S.  442;  Eames  v.  Andrews,  122  U.  S. 
40;  Eoberts  v.  Roter,  5  Fish.  295;  Gary 
v.  Miller,  34  F.  R.  392.  "  Latent  Solv- 
ent ' '  Celluloid  v.  Cellbnite,  42  F.  R,  90D ; 
Rider  v.  Adams,  57  F.  R.  597;  Tucker 
v.  Burditt,  5  F.  R.  808;  Tucker  v.  Cor- 
bin,  5  F.  R.  810;  Taber  v.  Marceau,  87 
-L'.  R.  871;  U.  S.  Glass  v.  Atlas,  88  F.  R. 
493;  90  F.  R.  724;  Michaelis  v.  Larkin, 
91  F.  R.  778.  Equivalence  must  be 
proved,  not  left  indefinite.  National  v. 
Swift,  100  F.  R.  451.  "Slowly  turning" 
not  construed  strictly.  Alvin  v.  Scharl- 
ing,  100  F.  R.  87.  Universal  Brush  v. 
Sonn,  146  F.  R.  517;  reversed  154  F.  R. 
665 ;  Malignani  v.  Jasper  Marsh,  180 
F.  R.  442.  "Finishing"  is  more  than 
removing  surplus  wax.  Two  ways  of  re- 
moving bubbles  not  equivalent.  National 
Phono  v.  American,  184  F.  R.  75.  First 
broad  inventor  entitled  to  broad  equiva- 
lents. Bowers  v.  Pacific,  90  F.  R.  745. 
92Westrumite  Co.  v.  Lincoln  Park,  174 
F.  R.  144 ;  Lange  v.  McGuin,  177  F.  R. 
219;  Electric  Storage  v.  Belknap,  112  F. 
R.  538;  Soc.  Fabriques  v.  Luders,  105 
F.  R.  632;  Chinnock  v.  Patterson,  112 
F.  R.  531;  Celluloid  v.  Eastman,  42  F. 
R.  159 ;  Kane  v.  Huggins,  44  F.  R.  287 ; 
Lowry  v.  Cowles,  56  F.  R.  488 ;  National 
v.  N.  E.,  123  F.  R.  436;  Thomson  Hous- 
ton v.  Wagner,  130  F.  R.  902;  Mattea- 
wan  v.  Emmons,  185  F.  R.  814;  Byerley 
v.  Ellis,  190  F.  R.  772 ;  Gunn  v.  Savage, 
25  F.  R.  101;  Byerley  v.  Standard  As- 
phalt, 189  F.  R.  759;  Crown  Cork  v. 
Brooklyn,  .190  F.  R.  323 ;  Ferro  v.  Con- 
crete, 206  F.  R.  666;  Jones  v.  Merrill,  8 
O.  G.  401 ;  Muscan  Hair  v.  American,  1 
Fish.  320;  Whippary  v.  United,  87  F. 
R.  215;  Westinghouse  v.  Montgomery, 
139  F.  R.  868.  So  also  in  manufacture. 
Hogan  v.  Westmoreland,  154  F.  R.  66. 
But  contra  where  the  patent  has  been  ad- 
judicated. Warren  v.  Montgomery,  172 
F.  R.  414.  But  see  Travers  v.  Hammock, 
78  F.  R.  638.  Injunction  granted  on  ad- 
judicated patent.  Acme  Acetylene  v. 
Commercial,  192  F.  R.  321.  Also  Fire- 


ball v.  Commercial,  198  F.  R.  650.  In 
an  adjudicated  patent  on  a  composition 
even  an  equivalent  ^as  covered  in  an  in- 
junction. Treibocher  v.  Wolf,  214  F.  R. 
414.  But  see  Risdon  v.  Medart,  158  U.  S. 
320.  Compare  Chase  v.  Fillebrown,  58 
F.  R.  374.  Contra  for  an  adjudicated 
patent.  Chadeloid  v.  Daxe,  180  F.  R. 
1004.  Even  when  the  novel  step  is  old 
in  many  arts  and  simple.  General  Elec- 
tric v.  Campbell,  137  F.  R.  600.  Injunc- 
tion granted  on  an  adjudicated  patent. 
Cleveland  Target  v.  U.  S.,  52  F.  R.  385. 

93Kimball  v.  Hess,  15  F.  R.  393; 
Adams  v.  Bridgewater,  26  F.  R.  324; 
Brett  v.  Quintard,  17  F.  R.  529;  Mi- 
chaelis v.  Roessler,  34  F.  R.  325;  Wels- 
bach  v.  Sunlight,  87  F.  R,  221;  Wels- 
bach  v.  American,  98  F.  R.  613;  War- 
ren v.  Dodge,  117  F.  R.  860;  Schmertz 
v.  Pittsburgh,  168  F.  R.  73;  Mississippi 
v.  Pittsburgh,  168  F.  R.  90.  But  'blast- 
ing in  ordinary  wells  did  not  anticipate 
blasting  deep  oil  wells  under  a  water 
tamping.  Roberts  v.  Schreiber,  2  F.  R. 
855.  Using  a  mechanical  control  of  gas 
pressure  does  not  infringe  a  chemical 
control  patent.  New  Process  Fermenta- 
tion v.  Maus,  20  F.  R.  725;  reversed,  122 
U.  S.  413.  A  new  shaped  blank  for 
welding  makes  different  process.  Clem- 
ent v.  Upson,  50  F.  R.  538.  Walrath  v. 
Pacific,  41  F.  R.  883;  Smelting  and  elec- 
trolysis. Lowrey  v.  Cowles,  68  F.  R. 
354;  reversed,  79  F.  R.  331.  Leaf  Tobac- 
co not  equivalent  of  paper.  John  R. 
Williams  v.  Miller,  107  F.  R.  290.  But 
using  mechanical  skill  to  speed  up  an  old 
process  does  not  make  it  infringe  a  dif- 
ferent patentable  one.  Schmertz  v. 
Western,  188  F.  R.  436.  Also  Goss  v. 
Cameron,  14  F.  R.  576.  The  scope  of 
equivalents  depends  on  the  prior  art ;  and 
where  that  is  wide  the  scope  is  narrow. 
Holstein  v.  Zeeland,  211  F.  R.  462;  Good- 
win v.  Eastman,  213  F.  R.  231.  A  slight 
change  of  temperature  may  be  patentably 
new.  Merrell  v.  Powdered  Milk,  215  F. 
R.  929.  A  single  step  process  is  not  the 
same  as  a  three-step  process.  Am.  Wood 
Paper  v.  Fibre,  23  Wall.  566.  Heating 
and  heating  over  a  water  bath  are  not 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


23 


prove94  identity  of  process. 

The  question  of  identity  of  invention,  therefore,  and  of  scope  of 
claims  and  disclosures  comes  up  in  several  forms,  one  interesting  form, 
though  almost  impossible  to  draw  valuable  broad  conclusions  from,  being 
the  relation  of  the  United  States  to  the  foreign95  patents  of  the  same  in- 
ventor. 

Double96  patenting  has  been  ruled  on  in  some  cases,  but  is  still  too 
unsettled  a  question  to  discuss  briefly  and  broadly,  aside  from  the  inter- 
relation of  process,  product  and  machine.  Where  an  inventor  has  both  a 
process  and  an  apparatus  application  pending,  abandonment97  or  restric- 
tion of  one  will  not  effect  a  patent  granted  on  the  other  and  the  same 
holds  true  with  the  relation  of98  foreign  to  U.  S.  patents.  It  is,  of  course, 
agreed  that  while  a  process  invention  is  a  different  invention  from  a 
machine  invention,  a  process  patent  must  differ  from  a  machine  patent 
more  than  in  substituting99  the  word  "method"  for  the  word  "means." 
It  has  been  held  that  a  machine  patent  may  be  reissued,  or  have  claims 
added  to  it  while  still  pending100  to  cover  a  process,  or  a  process  patent 


identical  as  elements  in  two  claims  of  one 
application.  Ex  parte  Ach,  96  O.  G. 
2411.  But  pasteurizing  by  moving  bot- 
tles through  pasteurizing  agent  is  pat- 
entable  over  moving  agent  past  bottles. 
In  re  Wagner,  105  O.  G.  1783. 

94National  Phono  v.  American,  184  F. 
R.  75;  Schmertz  v.  Western,  188  F.  R. 
436;  Fried.  Krupp  v.  Midvale,  191  F. 
R.  588.  A  patent  is  not  infringed  by  a 
process  depending  on  steps  which  the 
patentee  sought  to  avoid.  Tonopah  v. 
Vincent,  212  F.  R.  163. 

95Brush  v.  Accumulator,  47  F.  R,  48; 
Accumulator  v.  Julien,  57  F.  R.  605; 
Westinghouse  v.  Stanley,  138  F.  R.  823; 
Diamond  v.  Westinghouse,  152  F.  R. 
704;  Commercial  Acetylene  v.  Acme,  188 

F.  R.     89;      Commercial     Acetylene     v. 
Searchlight,    188    F.    R.    85;     197    F.   R. 
908;    Victor  v.  Hoschke,  188  F.  R.  326; 
Victor  v.  Sonora,  188  F.  R.  330;    Deprez 
v.  Bernstein  v.  Hunter  v.  Gaulard,  54  O. 

G.  1711;     Appert   v.    Parker,    74    O.    G. 
1587;    Bedford  v.  Comr.  of  Pats.,  87  O. 
G.    1611;     Tripler   v.   Linde,    101    O.    G. 
2288;     Leeds   and   Catlin   v.   Victor,   213 
U.  S.  301;    Cameron  Septic  v.  Knoxville, 
227   U.    S.   39;     Fireball   v.    Commercial, 
239  U.  S.  156;    Commercial  v.  Fairbank, 
133  U.  S.  176. 

96Elec.  Accumulator  v.  Brush,  52  F.  R. 
130;  47  F.  R.  48;  Westinghouse  v. 


Electric,  142  F.  R.  545;  Victor  v.  Du- 
plex, 177  F.  R.  248;  Diamond  v.  West- 
inghouse,  152  F.  R.  704;  Mosler  v.  Mos- 
ler,  127  U.  S.  354.  Compare  ex  parte 
Edison,  220  O.  G.  1373. 

97Saunders  v.  Miller,  146  O.  G.  505; 
Am.  Gramophone  v.  Gimbel,  234  F.  R. 
361;  Waterbury  Brass  v.  Miller,  5  Fish. 
48 ;  Mica  v.  Commercial,  166  F.  R.  440 ; 
Acme  Acetylene  v.  Commercial,  192  F. 
R.  321.  Compare  Fireball  v.  Commercial, 
239  U.  S.  156.  See  ex  parte  Stuart,  113 
O.  G.  850.  Nor  will  cancelling  a  claim 
for  one  affect  the  other.  Bullock  v. 
Crocker,  141  F.  R.  101.  But  see  Stearns 
v.  Russell,  85  F.  218. 

98Victor  Talking  v.  Hoschke,  188  F. 
R.  328 ;  Commercial  Acetylene  v.  Search- 
light, 188  F.  R.  85;  same  v.  Acme  Ace- 
tylene, 188  F.  R.  89;  192  F.  R.  321. 
Compare  Fireball  v.  Commercial,  239  U. 
S.  156.  But  see  Stearns  v.  Russell,  85 
F.  R.  218. 

99In  re  Creveling,  117  0.  G.  1167;  Leeds 
and  Catlin  v.  Victor,  213  U.  S.  301.  In 
re  Rowe,  192  O.  G.  519.  Compare  ex 
parte  Edison,  220  O.  G.  1373. 

lOONew  v.  Warren,  22  O.  G.  587 ;  Ded- 
erick  v.  Cassell,  9  F.  R.  306;  Fitch  v. 
Spang,  140  F.  R.  292;  Contra  James  v. 
Campbell,  104  U.  S.  356;  Contra  ex 
parte  Pfaudler,  22  O.  G.  1881;  Contra 
ex  parte  Lillie,  53  O.  G.  2041;  Compare 


24 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


can  be101  reissued  to  cover  a  machine  though  the  decisions  are  conflicting. 
Separate  patents  for  an  electric  motor  organization102  and  for  method 
of  operating  the  motors  even  when  apparently  dependent  on  the  appa- 
ratus have  been  held  valid.  It  has  been  held  that  where  a  machine 
patent  issues,  a  process103  patent  covering  the  machine  may  be  valid  if 
applied  for  a  less  than  two  years  after  the  machine  patent  issues.  It  has 
been  held  that  a  process  patent  cannot  be  reissued  to  cover  a  product 
and104  contra;  the  same  holds  true  of  reissuing105  product  patents  to 
cover  processes.  Analogous  facts  also  hold  true  as  to  the  adding  of 
claims106  to  pending  applications.  It  would  seem  that  since  the  Courts 
have  had  to  face  specific  problems,  they  have  endeavored  to  settle  each 
case  on  its  merits,  irrespective  of  a  purely  philosophical  view  of  patent 
law. 

What  is  new  matter  or  broadening  of  claims  in  a  reissue107  is  a 


Forbes  v.  Thomson,  53  O.  G.  2042.  Com- 
pare contra  Crane  v.  Meriam,  51  O.  G. 
1783.  Compare  Wing  v.  Anthony,  106 
U.  8.  142.  Contra  Eachus  v.  Broomall, 
115  U.  S.  429.  Contra  Heald  v.  Kice, 
104  U.  S.  737.  Process  claims  may  be 
added  to  a  machine  application.  Kirch- 
berger  v.  Am.  Acetylene,  128  F.  R.  599. 

lOUn  re  Heroult,  127  O.  G.  3217.  Con- 
tra Scrivener  v.  Oakland  Gas,  22  F.  R. 
98.  But  not  if  patent  is  void  for  antici- 
pation. Penn.  Elee.  v.  Conroy,  185  F.  R. 
511;  Ex  parte  Perkins,  55  O.  G.  139; 
Rietzel  v.  Harmatta,  161  O.  G.  1043. 
Contra  Cleveland  v.  Detroit,  131  F.  R, 
740. 

102Westinghouse  Electric  v.  Dayton, 
106  F.  R.  724;  118  F.  R.  562;  Century 
Electric  v.  Westinghouse,  191  F.  R.  350; 
Brown  v.  Thome,  2  O.  G.  388.  Compare 
ex  parte  Holt,  68  O.  G.  536.  But  see  in 
re  Creveling,  117  O.  G.  1167.  Compare 
in  re  White,  136  O.  G.  1771,  and  ex  parte 
Edison,  220  O.  G.  1373. 

lOSEastern  Paper  Bag  v.  Standard,  30 
F.  R.  63;  McKay  v.  Dibert,  5  F.  R.  587. 
Compare  ex  parte  Atwood,  44  O.  G.  341. 
But  a  process  application  is  not  a  con- 
tinuation of  a  machine  application  which 
contained  no  process  claims.  Model  Bot- 
tling v.  Anheuser  Busch,  190  F.  R.  573. 
An  analogous  situation  is  in  Victor  v. 
American,  140  F.  R.  860.  But  see  Meyer 
v.  Sarfert,  96  O.  G.  1037. 

104Asbestos  v.  H.  W.  Johns,  189  F.  R. 
611;  Badische  Anilin  v.  Hamilton,  13 
O.  G.  273;  Badische  Anilin  v.  Higgin, 


14  O.  G.  414.  Even  in  separate  patents. 
Tucker  v.  Dana,  7  F.  R,  213.  Compare 
Asbestos  v.  H.  W.  Johns,  184  F.  R.  620. 
Article  patent  cannot  be  reissued  to  cover 
process  of  using  it.  Ex  parte  Hicks,  16 
O.  G.  546. 

105Valid,  Asbestos  Shingle  v.  Rock, 
217  F.  R.  66.  Compare  Ex  parte  Wooten, 
3  O.  G.  521;  Goodyear  v.  Blake,  10  Fed. 
Cas.  646.  Invalid,  Giant  Powder  v.  Cali- 
fornia Powder,  98  U.  S.  126.  Product  re- 
issued for  process  void.  Kelleher  v.  Darl- 
ing, 14  O.  G.  673.  Valid,  Tucker  v.  Bur- 
dett,  4  Ban.  and  A.  569.  Asbestos  v.  H. 
W.  Johns,  189  F.  R,  608.  Invalid,  Vac- 
uum Oil  v.  Buffalo,  20  F.  R.  850.  Valid, 
Providence  Rubber  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall. 
788.  Leggett  v.  Standard  Oil,  149  U.  S. 
287;  Cochrane  v.  Badische,  111  U.  S. 
293. 

lOGEx  parte  Ruckrich,  106  0.  G.  765; 
Menden  v.  Curtis,  117  O.  G.  1795;  Rietz- 
el v.  Harmatta,  161  O.  G.  1043;  Ex 
parte  Benson,  15  O.  G.  512;  Ex  parte 
Shalters,  15  0.  G.  970;  Dewey  v.  Colby, 
75  O.  G.  1360;  Ex  parte  Gaylord,  117 
O.  G.  2366.  And  .a  process  application 
will  be  put  into  interference  with  a  prod- 
uct one.  Finley  v.  Chapman,  1  O.  G.  277. 

107Kelleher  v.  Darling,  ]4  O.  G.  673; 
Am.  Middlings  v.  Atlantic,  15  O.  G.  467 ; 
Eagleton  v.  West,  111  U.  S.  490;  Mc- 
Knight  v.  Pohle,  130  O.  G.  2069;  Stew- 
art v.  Am.  Lava,  215  U.  S.  161;  Sover- 
eign v.  Lillie,  185  O.  G.  830;  White  v. 
Dunbar,  119  U.  S.  47;  Eames  v.  And- 
rews, 122  U.  S.  40;  Gold  v.  U.  S.,  3  Fish. 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


25 


question  which  depends  both  on  common  knowledge  and  on  special  facts 
in  the  application.  This  kind  of  point  of  view  hashed  one  Court  to  go  so 
far  as  to  say  in  the  Adrenalin108  case,  that  they  were  not  prepared  to 
hold  synthetic  adrenalin  would  infringe  a  claim  to  extracted  adrenalin. 

A  process  is  not  infringed  if  any  claimed  step  or  ingredient  is109 
omitted  and  no  equivalent110  substituted  therefor.  But  avoiding  the 
terms  of  the  claims  does  not  avoid111  infringement  when  the  process  is 
really  the  same.  The  same  is  true  of  ingredients  of112  compositions. 
While  the113  theory  of  the  improvement  need  not  be  set  forth  in  the 
patent  or  may  be  erroneously  set  forth,  yet  the  true  theory  of  opera- 


489 ;  Kane  v.  Huggins,  44  F.  R.  287 ;  In- 
ternational Terra  Cotta  v.  Maurer,  44  F. 
R.  618;  Casein  v.  A.  M.  Collins,  174  F. 
R.  341 ;  General  Chemical  v.  Blackmore, 
156  F.  R.  968;  Francis  v.  Mellor,  1  O. 
G.  48;  Carew  v.  Boston,  1  O.  G.  91;  Ex 
parte  Wooten,  3  O.  G.  521;  Ex  parte 
Hermann,  10  O.  G.  856;  Russell  v. 
Dodge,  93  U.  S.  460;  Jones  v.  McMur- 
ray,  13  O.  G.  6;  Atlantic  Giant  v.  Good- 
year, 13  O.  G.  45;  Wonson  v.  Peterson, 
13  0.  G.  548;  Kelleher  v.  Darling,  14 
O.  G.  673;  Atlantic  Giant  v.  Rand,  16 
O.  G.  87 ;  St.  Louis  Stamping  v.  Quinby, 
16  O.  G.  135.  Compare  Neill  v.  Comr. 
Pats.,  82  O.  G.  749.  Compare  ex  parte 
Welch,  93  O.  G.  2105.  Compare  in  re 
Blackmore,  140  O.  G.  1209.  Compare 
Slingluff  v.  Bolin,  182  O.  G.  720;  182 
O.  G.  975. 

lOSParke  Davis  v.  Mulford,  196  F.  R. 
496. 

109Hudson  v.  Draper,  4  Fish.  256; 
Hammerschlag  v.  Garrett,  10  F.  R.  479; 
Cotter  v.  New  Haven  Copper,  13  F.  R. 
234;  Royer  v.  Schultz,  40  F.  R.  158; 
Sun  Vapor  v.  Western,  41  F.  R.  43; 
Kennedy  v.  Solar,  69  F.  R.  716;  Amer- 
ican Fibre  Chamois  v.  Port  Huron,  72  F. 
R.  516;  Eastman  v.  Getz,  77  F.  R.  412; 
Cerealine  v.  Bates,  77  F.  R.  883;  Heller 
v.  Bauer,  19  F.  R.  96;  Matthews  v.  Iron 
Clad,  21  F.  R.  641;  Globe  Nail  v.  Su- 
perior, 27  F.  R.  450;  Commos  v.  Somers, 
49  F.  R,  920.  But  omitting  part  of  a 
step  does  not  avoid  infringement.  Hoff 
v.  Iron  Clad,  27  F.  R.  307;  139  U.  S. 
362.  So,  if  the  specification  makes  a 
pump  essential  one  who  avoids  a  pump 
fails  to  infringe.  Philadelphia  v.  Davis, 
79  F.  R.  357.  In  interferences  compare 


Rosell  v.  Allen,  92  O.  G.  1036.  See  also 
note  24. 

HOPitching  barrels  by  superheated 
steam  does  not  infringe  pitching  by  burnt 
air.  Gottfried  v.  Conrad  Seipp  Brew., 
8  F.  R.  322;  see  128  U.  S.  158. 

UlAcme  v.  American,  206  F.  R.  478; 
United  Nickel  v.  Keith,  5  O.  G.  272; 
Wetherill  v.  N.  J.  Zinc,  5  O.  G.  460; 
Burr  v.  Prentiss,  4  Fed.  Gas.  821. 

H2Otley  v.  Watkins,  36  F.  R.  323; 
Lane  v.  Levi,  104  O.  G.  1898.  See  also 
note  24. 

113National  Enameling  v.  N.  E.,  139 
F.  R.  643;  Malignani  v.  Jasper  Marsh, 
180  F.  R.  442;  Century  Electric  v.  West- 
inghouse,  191  F.  R.  350;  Merrell  v.  Na- 
tural, 217  F.  R.  578;  Philadelphia  Rub- 
ber v.  U.  S.,  229  F.  R.  150,  but  see  Phil- 
adelphia Rubber  v.  Portage,  227  F.  R. 
623;  Ex  parte  Mayall,  4  O.  G.  582; 
Warren  v.  Evans,  234  F.  R,  657;  Eames 
v.  Andrews,  122  U.  S.  40 ;  Cahill  v.  Beck- 
ford,  Holmes  48 ;  Minerals  Separation  v. 
Miami,  237  F.  R.  609;  Western  Mineral 
v.  Globe,  125  F.  R.  770.  But  when  sole 
novelty  lies  in  the  theory  in  the  particu- 
lar art,  failure  to  set  it  forth  may  neg- 
ative novelty.  Steiner  Fire  Extinguisher 
v.  City  of  Adrian,  52  F.  R.  731.  Com- 
pare Siebert  Cyl.  Oil  Cup  v.  Harper 
Steam  Lub.,  4  F.  R.  328;  and  ex  parte 
Seibert,  16  0.  G.  262.  Erroneous,  U.  S. 
Mitis  v.  Midvale,  135  F.  R.  103.  But  a 
patent  to  a  mere  theory  of  operation  is 
void.  Manhattan  v.  Helios  Upton,  135 
F.  R.  785.  If  the  description  is  suffi- 
cient to  enable  the  process  to  be  worked, 
the  theory  is  immaterial.  Combustion  v. 
Worcester,  190  F.  R.  155. 


26 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


tion  will  be  controlling  in  deciding  questions  of  both114  novelty  and  in- 
fringement115 especially  where  the  empirical  steps116  are  old  in  similar 


114Hammerschlag  v.  Judd,  28  F.  E. 
621;  N.  Y.  Filter  v.  Niagara,  77  F.  E. 
900;  80  F.  E.  924;  N.  Y.  Filter  v.  El- 
mira,  83  F.  E.  1013;  Kirchberger  v.  Am. 
Acetelyne,  128  F.  E.  599 ;  Baker  Lead  v. 
National,  135  F.  E.  546;  Chisholm  v. 
Canastota,  135  F.  E.  816;  Mica  v.  Com- 
mercial, 166  F.  E.  440;  Fullerton  v.  An- 
derson, 166  F.  E.  443;  Westinghouse  v. 
Toledo,  172  F.  E.  371;  Casein  v.  A.  M. 
Collins,  174  F.  E.  341 ;  Victor  v.  Duplex, 
177  F.  E.  248;  Combustion  Utilities  v. 
Worcester  Gaslight,  190  F.  E.  155;  Ger- 
man American  Filter  v.  Loew  Filter,  103 
F.  E.  303;  Adams  and  Westlake  v.  Wil- 
son, 21  F.  E.  648;  Gary  v.  Wolf,  24  F. 

E,  139;    Tucker  v.  Tucker,  10  O.  G.  464; 
Dunkley  v.  Beekhuis,  190  O.  G.  267;    In 
re  Moulton,  191  O.  G.  588;    Graphic  Arts 
v.  Photo,  231  F.  E.  146;    Dolbear  v.  Am. 
Telephone,    126    U.    S.    1;     Lalance    and 
Grosjean  v.   Habermann,   53   F.   E.   375; 
55   F.   E,   292;     Westinghouse  v.   Sutter, 
202  F.  E.  759 ;    Electric  Storage  v.  Gould, 
204  F.  E,  280.     Wallerstein  v.  Liebmann, 
215  F.  E.  915;    Harrisburgh  v.  N.  Y.,  217 
jv.   H.   366;      Thomson  Elec.   Welding  v. 
Barney,  227  F.   E.  428.     Waxing  paper 
by  moving  coating  roll  and  paper  at  dif- 
ferent speeds,  not  anticipated  by  machine 
to  size  paper.  Hammerschlag  v.  Scamoni, 
7  F.  E.  584;    Hammerschlag  v.  Garrett, 
9  F.  E.  43.     Burning  wet  fuels.     Brown 
v.  Thome,  2  O.  G.  388.     Compare  Schup- 
phaus  v.  E.  I.  Du  Pont,  204  F.  E.  624. 
Even  where  the  empirical  steps  are  appa- 
rently  old.      Celluloid  v.   American   Zylo- 
nite,  26  F.  E.  692;    28  F.  E.  195.    Man- 
ufacture   of    aluminum.      Pittsburg    Re- 
duction v.  Cowles,  55  F.  E.  301;    64  F. 
It.  125.     But  a  patent  based  on  a  wrong 
theory   cannot   be   reissued   to   claim   the 
right   theory.     Seibert   Cylinder   Oil   Cup 
v.  Harper,  4  F.  E.  328;    Marconi  v.  De 
Forest,  236  F.  E.  942;     Electric  v.  Car- 
borundum,   102    F.    E.    618;      American 
Stove  v.  Cleveland,  158  F.  E.  978.     The 
mere  formulation  of  a  theory   does   not 
make    it    patentable.      Century    Elec.    v. 
Wagner,  192  F.  E.  564. 

USAmerican    Stove    v.    Cleveland,    158 

F.  E.    978;     Schmertz    v.    Western,    195 
F.   E.    760;     Electric    Storage   v.    Gould, 
204   F.   E.    280;     Harrisburgh   v.    N.   Y., 
217  F.  E.  366;     Hide  Tte  v.  Fibre,  226 
F.  E.  34;    Merrill  v.  Yoemans,  5  O.  G. 


268;  Jones  v.  Merrill,  8  O.  G.  401; 
Tucker  v.  Tucker,  10  O.  G.  464;  United 
Nickel  v.  Manhattan,  4  Ban.  and  A.  173 ; 
Electric  v.  Carborundum,  102  F.  E.  618; 
Westinghouse  v.  Montgomery,  153  F.  E. 
880;  compare  Westinghouse  v.  Saranac, 
113  F.  E.  884;  compare  Westinghouse  v. 
Stanley,  117  F.  E.  309;  compare  West- 
inghouse v.  Orange,  119  F.  E.  366.  See 
the  limits  of  composition  allowable,  Don- 
aldson v.  Marbolith,  173  F.  E.  88.  Ig- 
norance of  reactions  is  no  defense.  Gen- 
eral Bakelite  v.  Nikolas,  225  F.  R.  539; 
Crown  Cork  v.  Brooklyn  Bottle  Stopper, 
190  F.  E.  323;  Combustion  Utilities  v. 
Worcester  Gaslight,  190  F.  E.  155;  Gary 
v.  Wolff,  24  F.  E.  139;  Gottfried  v.  Con- 
rad Seipp  Brew.,  8  F.  E.  322;  reversed 
128  U.  S.  158;  New  Process  'Fermenta- 
tion v.  Baltz,  10  F.  E.  289;  Consol. 
Bunging  v.  Peter,  28  F.  E.  287;  .Jack 
son  v.  Birmingham,  72  F.  E.  269;  79 
F.  E.  801;  Binder  v.  Atlanta,  73  F.  E. 
480;  United  Indurated  v.  Whippany,  83 
F.  E.  485;  reversed  87  F.  E,  251;  West- 
inghouse v.  Roberts,  125  F.  E.  6;  Kirch- 
berger  v.  Am.  Acetylene,  128  F.  R.  599 ; 
Georgia  v.  Bilfinger,  129  F.  R.  131; 
Baker  Lead  v.  National,  135  F.  R.  546; 
National  v.  American,  135  F.  R.  809 ; 
Fitch  v.  Spang,  140  F.  E.  292;  Downes 
v.  Teter-Heany,  150  F.  E.  122;  Blair  v. 
Jeanette,  161  F.  R.  355;  Union  Carbide 
v.  American,  172  F.  R.  136;  181  F.  R. 
Ill;  Potthoff  v.  Hanson,  174  F.  R.  983; 
Victor  v.  Duplex,  177  F.  R.  248.  Improv- 
ing an  old  process  by  speeding  it  up  may 
avoid  infringement  where  the  theory  of 
operation  is  different,  though  the  im- 
proved old  process  practically  follows  the 
terms  of  the  patent.  Schmertz  v.  West- 
ern Glass,  188  F.  R.  436.  Compare 
Tucker  v.  Sargent,  9  F.  R.  299.  Cold 
rolling  seams  in  a  metal  pipe  does  not 
infringe  a  patent  based  on  hot  rolling. 
Root  v.  Lamb,  7  F.  R.  222.  Compare 
Celluloid  v.  Arlington,  52  F.  R.  740. 

llOCary  v.  Wolff,  24  F.  R.  139;  Gary 
v.  Lovell,  24  F.  R.  141;  31  F.  R.  344'; 
Wickwire  v.  Wire,  41  F.  R.  37;  Electric 
Smelting  v.  Carborundum,  83  F.  E.  492; 
Schlicht  v.  Aeolipyle,  117  F.  E,  299; 
Eembert  v.  American,  129  F.  R.  355; 
U.  S.  Repair  v.  Standard,  95  F.  E.  137; 
Gilbert  v.  Watzelhan,  197  F.  E.  315. 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


27 


arts  or  processes.  The  claims,  however,  must  be  read  in  the  light  of 
the117  specification.  Adding  a  new  step  does  not  avoid  infringement  if 
the118  theory  remains  the  same.  Especially  must  reliance  be  placed  on 
the  theory  of  operation  in  questions  of119  infringement  of  process  parents 
where  other  tests  are  difficult  to  apply,  as  where  the  defendants120  fail 
to  completely  disclose  their  process.  The  same  considerations  apply 
conversely  among  others  when  the  question  of121  contributory  or  di- 
rect122 infringement  of  process  patent  is  raised  by  the  selling  of  a  ma- 
chine or  manufacture123  or  composition  or  apparatus  usable  for  the 
process.  Infringement  also  may  be  charged  though  the  infringement 
was  possibly124  accidental  in  details,  if  those  details  contributed  to  the 
result.  Infringement  also  is  found  where  goods  partly  processed  when 
purchased  are  completed125  according  to  a  patented  process. 


117Corn  Products  v.  Douglas,  207  F. 
B.  571;  Carnegie  v.  Cambria,  185  U.  S. 
425;  Moore  Filter  v.  Tonopah,  201  F. 
B.  532. 

HSLalance  and  Grosjean  v.  Haber- 
mann,  53  F.  R.  380;  55  F.  B.  292;  Thom- 
son Houston  v.  Dayton,  137  F.  B.  917; 
Ford  v.  Tannage,  84  F.  B.  644 ;  Clerk  v. 
Tannage,  84  F.  B.  643 ;  Electric  v.  Pitts- 
burgh, 125  F.  B.  926;  National  Enamel- 
ing v.  N.  E.,  139  F.  B.  643 ;  General  Elec- 
tric v.  Morgan,  159  F.  B.  951.  Such  as 
heating  by  an  electric  current,  instead  of 
external  heat.  Pittsburgh  Beduction  v. 
Cowles  Elec.  Smelt.,  55  F.  B.  301.  N.  Y. 
v.  Elmira,  82  F.  B.  459.  So  broad  claims 
may  cover  another  process  where  the 
theory  is  partly  the  same.  Electric  v.  Car- 
borundum, 102  F.  B.  618. 

119Goldie  v.  Diamond,  64  F.  B.  237; 
Cary  v.  De  Haven,  88  F.  B,  698;  Blair 
v.  Jeanette,  361  F.  B.  355;  Hyde  v. 
Minerals  (U.  S.),  234  O.  G.  1311;  Ac- 
cumulator C.  v.  Consolidated  Elec.  Stor- 
age, 53  F.  B.  793;  Delaware  Metal  Be- 
fining  v.  Woodfall,  55  F.  B.  988;  Globe 
Nail  v.  U.  S.  Horse  Nail,  19  F.  B.  819; 
Celluloid  v.  Arlington,  44  F.  B.  81;  Mi- 
chaelis  v.  Boessler,  38  F.  B.  724.  And 
people  who  have  long  claimed  to  use  a 
process  need  not  disclose  it  to  a  recent 
patentee.  Stokes  v.  Heller,  56  F.  B.  297. 
But  the  mere  identity  of  product  will  not 
throw  burden  on  defendant.  Schwartz 
v.  Housman,  88  F.  B.  519.  A  change  of 
temperature  in  making  starch  may  in- 
volve a  new  theory.  Corn  Products  v. 
Douglas,  207  F.  B.'  751. 


120U.  S.  Frumentum  v.  Lauhoff,  216  F. 
B,  610. 

121German  American  Filter  v.  Loew, 
103  F.  B.  303;  Johnson  v.  Foos,  141  F. 
B.  73.  Not  where  probable  use  was  for 
other  system.  General  Elec.  v.  Sutter, 
186  F.  B.  637.  Bepairing,  Goodyear  v. 
Preterre,  14  O.  G.  346. 

122Westinghouse   Elec.   v.   Dayton,   106 

F.  B.  724.    In  a  product  (tempered  saw). 
Thompson    v.    Bushnell,    96    F.    B.    238; 
German  American  v.  Loew,  103  F.  B.  303. 

123Alabastine  v.  Payne,  27  F.  B.  559; 
Boyd  v.  Cherry,  50  F.  B.  279;  Vermont 
v.  Gibson,  56  F.  B.  143;  N.  Y.  Filter  v. 
Jackson,  91  F.  B.  422;  Loew  v.  German 
American,  107  F.  B.  949;  Bumford  v. 
Hygienic,  159  F.  B.  436;  Bumford  v. 
Hecker,  10  O.  G.  289;  Bowker  v.  Dows, 
15  O.  G.  510;  Leeds  and  Catlin  v.  Vic- 
tor, 213  U.  S.  318;  Westinghouse  v. 
Wagner,  225  U.  S.  604 ;  Wood  v..  Cleve- 
land, 4  Fish.  550.  But  are  limited  by  the 
scope  of  the  invention.  Geis  v.  Kimber, 
36  F.  B.  105.  But  not  necessarily  so. 
Bullock  v.  Westinghouse,  129  F.  B. 
105.  Compare  Bumford  v.  Hecker,  3  O. 

G.  353. 

124Roberts  v.  Schretber,  2  F.  B.  855. 

125Celluloid  v.  American  Zylonite,  30 
F.  B.  437;  35  F.  B.  417;  Perkins  Glue 
v.  Solva,  223  F.  B.  792;  Chisholm  v. 
Johnson,  106  F.  B.  191;  reversed  115 
F.  B.  625.  But  see  dissent,  and  Chisholm 
v.  Fleming,  133  F.  B.  924.  So,  too,  fin- 
ishing a  well  by  a  patented  process,  in- 
fringes a  patent  on  the  well  process  it- 
self. Andrews  v.  Eames,  15  F.  B.  106. 


28 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


Infringement  damages  are  computed  both  on  the  basis  of  profits126 
to  the  infringer  and127  damage  to  the  patentee,  but  only  cover  the 
product  of128  the  patented  process.  The  using  or  vending  of  a  composi- 
tion of  matter  infringes129  a  patent  for  it,  and  where  an  article  is  made 
wholly  of  patented  composition130  the  damages  are  the  entire  profits. 

In  interferences  the  questions  are  much  the  same  as  in  infringe- 
ment and  novelty,  both  as  to  steps  and  ingredients  added  or  omitted, 
But  the  proof  of  the  infringement,  anticipation,  and  laches,  etc.,  in  con- 
nection with  something  intangible,  like  a  process131  is  often  somewhat 


Making  part  of  a  key  board  with  continu- 
ous covering  infringes  claim  to  whole 
keyboard.  Celluloid  Co.  v.  Pratt,  21  F. 
B.  313 ;  overruled  on  novelty,  Celluloid 
v.  Tower,  26  F.  R.  451.  But  compare 
Celluloid  v.  Comstock,  23  F.  B.  38.  Buy- 
ing commercial  pure  nickel,  instead  puri- 
fying its  solution  does  not  avoid  a  patent 
requiring  a  pure  article.  United  Nickel 
v.  California,  25  F.  B.  475.  But  see 
Boneless  v.  Roberts,  12  F.  R.  627. 

126Everest  v.  Buffalo  Lubricating,  31 
F.  R.  742;  Celluloid  v.  Cellonite,  40  F. 
R.  476;  Am  Ende  v.  Seabury,  43  F.  R. 
672;  Diamond  v.  Brown,  166  F.  R.  306; 
Hemolin  v.  Harway,  166  F.  R.  434;  Ful- 
lerton  v.  Anderson,  166  F.  R.  443; 
Pressed  Prism  v.  Continuous,  181  F.  R. 
151;  Fox  v.  Knickerbocker,  158  F.  R. 
422;  Byerly  v.  Cleveland,  31  F.  R.  73; 
Schmertz  v.  Western,  203  F.  R.  1006; 
U.  S.  Frumentum  v.  Lauhoff,  216  F.  R, 
610;  Continuous  v.  Schmertz,  219  F.  R. 
199 ;  Cambria  v.  Carnegie,  224  F.  R.  947 ; 
Western  v.  Schmertz,  226  F.  R.  730; 
Byerly  v.  Sun,  226  F.  R.  759;  Munising 
v.  American  Sulphite,  228  F.  R.  700; 
Providence  Rubber  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall. 
788;  'Piper  v.  Brown,  2  O.  G.  97;  Am. 
Nicholson  Paving  v.  Elizabeth,  6  O.  G. 
746;  Black  v.  Thome,  7  O.  G.  176; 
Tilghman  v.  Proctor,  125  U.  S.  136 ;  Hurl- 
burt  v.  Schillinger,  130  U.  S.  456. 

127United  Nickel  v.  Central  Pacific,  36 
F.  R.  186;  Fox  v.  Knickerbocker,  165  F. 
R.  442;  Carew  v.  Boston,  1  O.  G.  91; 
Goodyear  v.  Antwerp,  9  O.  G.  497.  Com- 
pare Schillinger  v.  Gunther,  14  O.  G.  713; 
Wetherill  v.  N.  J.,  1  Ban.  and  A.  485. 

128Mowry  v.  Whitney,  14  Wall.  620; 
Lawther  v.  Hamilton,  64  F.  R.  221.  Com- 
pare Royer  v.  Shultz,  45  F.  R.  51. 

129Kiesele  v.  Haas,  32  F.  R.  794. 

ISOWelling  v.   Le   Bau,   34   F.   R.   40; 


Codington  v.  Propfe,  112  F.  R.  1016. 
Compare  Carborundum  v.  Electric,  203 
F.  R.  976. 

ISlPhiladelphia  Rubber  v.  U.  S.,  229 
F.  R.  150 ;  American  Featherbone  v. 
Warren,  141  F.  R.  655;  Petrie  v.  De 
Schweinitz,  99  O.  G.  446;  Tripler  v. 
Linde,  101  O.  G.  2288;  Flora  v.  Powrie, 
106  O.  G.  2288;  109  O.  G.  2443;  Talbot 
v.  Monell,  107  O.  G.  1093;  McKnight  v. 
Pohle,  105  O.  G.  977;  Marconi  v.  Shoe- 
maker, 131  O.  G.  1939;  Boynton  v.  Tag- 
gart,  190  O.  G.  795;  General  Electric  v. 
Steinberger,  214  F.  R.  781;  Bender  v. 
Engel,  211  O.  G.  285;  Manning  v.  Cape 
Ann,  108  U.  S.  462;  Toch  v.  Zibell,  231 
F.  R.  711;  233  F.  R.  933;  Tompkins  v. 
St.  Regis,  236  F.  R.  221;  Bene  v.  Jean- 
tet,  129  U.  S.  683 ;  Allen  v.  Alter,  3  App. 
Comr.  Pats.  322;  Bridge  v.  Brown, 
Holmes  53;  Collins  v.  White,  3  App. 
Com.  Pats.,  329;  Gutta  Percha  v.  Good- 
year, 3  Ban.  and  A.  212;  Jones  v.  Weth- 
erill, MacArthur  409;  Hudson  v.  Draper, 
4  Fish.  256;  National  v.  Arctic  Oil,  4 
Fish.  514;  Ready  v.  Taylor,  3  Ban.  and 
A.  368;  Rich  v.  Lippincott,  2  Fish.  1; 
Sickles  v.  Falls,  2  Fish.  202;  Treadwell 
v.  Fox,  3  App.  Comr.  Pats.,  201;  General 
Elec.  v.  Germania,  174  F.  R.  1017;  Co- 
dington v.  Propfe,  112  F.  R,  1016; 
Maurer  v.  Dickerson,  113  F.  R.  870; 
Welsbach  v.  American,  98  F.  R.  613; 
Westinghouse  v.  Sutter,  194  F.  R.  888; 
202  F.  B.  759;  Emerson  v.  Simpson,  202 
F.  B.  747;  Crowell  v.  Sim,  1870.  C.  D. 
72;  Riley  v.  Bauman,  1871  C.  D.  101; 
Spencer  v.  Trafford,  1871  C.  D.  119; 
Worley  v.  Loker,  104  U.  S.  340;  Doyle 
v.  McRoberts,  79  O.  G.  1029;  Handy 
Things  v.  Dorsey,  188  F.  R.  70;  La^ 
lance  and  Grosjean  v.  Habermann,  53 
F.  R.  375;  Imperial  v.  Stein,  77  F.  R, 
612.  So  is  notice  by  marking  different. 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


29 


different  from  proof  of  an  infringement  of  an  article  or  a  machine. 
Moreover  interference  in  fact  is  not132  proved  by  ability  to  copy  claims. 
There  is  no  interference  where  the  claims  of133  one  party  include  an  im- 
portant step  not  in  the  claims  of  the  other,  or  a134  product  not  made  by 
him.  The  prior  inventor  of  a  process  is  held  prior135  inventor  of  its 
product.  The  question  of  inventorship,  as  between  a  suggester  and  a 
reducer136  to  practice,  is  often  exceedingly  narrow.  Reduction  to  prac- 
tice must  be  complete  and137  successful  and  work  continuous.  The  ques- 


U.  S.  Mitis  v.  Carnegie,  89  F.  E.  206. 
Compare  General  Electric  v.  McLaren, 
140  F.  E.  876.  Also  Henschel  v.  Carth- 
age, 169  F.  E.  114.  Compare  Haarmann 
De  v.  Van  Dyk,  165  F.  E.  934.  Com- 
pare United  Nickel  v.  Manhattan  Brass, 
4  Ban.  and  A.  173.  Analogously  it  is  im- 
possible to  mark  the  ' '  article  patented. ' ' 
U.  S.  Mitis  v.  Midvale,  89  F.  E.  206; 
135  F.  E,  303.  Compare  A.  B.  Dick  v. 
Underwood,  235  F.  E.  300.  In  a  machine 
see  Lewis  v.  Cronemeyer,  130  0.  G.  300. 
Compare  Mark  v.  Greenawalt,  138  O.  G. 
965;  140  O.  G.  509.  Compare  Whitman 
v.  King,  160  O.  G.  260.  Compare  Mc- 
Berty  v.  Cook,  90  O.  G.  2295;  Locke  v. 
Boch,  93  O.  G.  1722.  Compare  experts 
in  interference  cases.  Stone  v.  Pupin, 
100  O.  G.  1113.  Compare  Chaff ee  v. 
Boston  Belting,  22  How.  217.  For  an- 
ticipation see  Young  v.  Burley,  200  F. 

E.  258 ;     and   Emerson   v.   Simpson,    202 

F.  E.  747.     For  evidence  negativing  iden- 
tity.    Standard   v.   American,   203   F.   E. 
508.     Compare  Macbeth  Evans  v.  General 
Electric,    231    F.    E.    183.      In    Minerals 
Separation  v.  Miami,  237  F.  E,  609,  the 
Court  (not  in  the  printed  decision)  ruled 
that  it  would  receive  as  evidence  enlarged 
micro-photograph   moving  pictures  show- 
ing comparative  phenomena  of  liquids  act- 
ing on  solids,  even  though  it  was  neces- 
sary to  adjourn  the  court  to  a  moving  pic- 
ture theater,  and  there  to  view  the  pic- 
tures. 

132Bissel  v.  Eobert,  51  O.  G.  1618. 

133Wickers  v.  Albert,  129  O.  G.  1268; 
Wickers  v.  Upham,  129  O.  G.  1612 ;  Sad- 
tier  v.  Carmichael  v.  Smith,  86  O.  G. 
1498;  Bullier  v.  Willson,  87  O.  G.  180. 
Compare  Eosell  v.  Allen,  92  O.  G.  1036. 
But  see  Wickers  v.  McKee,  129  O.  G. 
869;  129  0.  G.  1269  and  1270. 

134Calm  v.  Schweinitz  v.  Dolley  v. 
Gcisler,  86  O.  G.  1633. 


135Compare  Universal  v.  Willimantic, 
82  F.  E.  228.  Compare  Mica  v.  Com- 
mercial, 157  F.  E.  90. 

l36Braunstein  v.  Holmes,  130  O.  G. 
2371;  Braunstein  v.  Holmes,  133  O.  G. 
1937;  Ladoff  v.  Demster,  166  O.  G.  511; 
Moody  v.  Colby,  198  O.  G.  899 ;  Eiley  v. 
Barnard,  59  O.  G.  1919;  Flather  v. 
Weber,  104  0.  G.  312;  French  v.  Hoi- 
comb,  115  O.  G.  506;  120  O.  G.  1824. 
Compare  Corner  v.  Kyle,  114  O.  G.  2092. 
Compare  Hewlett  v.  Steinberger,  190  O. 
G.  270.  But  see  General  Electric  v. 
Steinberger,  214  F.  E.  781. 

137Eeed  v.  Eoberts,  1869  C.  D.  88;  En- 
gineer v.  Hotel,  226  F.  E.  779 ;  226  F.  E. 
949;  McCracken  v.  Russell,  1869  C.  D. 
35;  Kirchner  v.  Blair,  13  O.  G.  364; 
Sawyer  v.  Edison,  25  O.  G.  597;  Beach 
v.  Fowler,  48  O.  G.  821;  Zwietusch  v. 
Stockheim,  53  0.  G.  755;  Croskey  v.  At- 
terbury,  76  O.  G.  163;  Appert  v. 
fcchmertz,  84  O.  G.  508;  Tripler  v. 
Linde,  101  O.  G.  2288;  102  O.  G.  1297; 
Kyle  v.  Corner,  113  O.  G.  2216;  Wickers 
v.  McKee,  129  O.  G.  869;  Wickers  v. 
Upham,  129  O.  G.  1612;  Sherwood  v. 
Drewson,  130  O.  G.  657;  Sydeman  v. 
Thoma,  141  O.  G.  866 ;  Whitman  v.  King, 
160  O.  G.  259  ;  Potter  v.  Tone,  163  O.  G. 
729;  Sanders  v.  Emerson,  174  O.  G. 
1220;  Bridge  v.  Brown,  Holmes  53; 
Jones  v.  Wetherill,  MacArthur,  409 ;  Na- 
tional v.  Artie  Oil,  4  Fish.  514;  Union  v. 
Lounsbury,  2  F.  E.  389;  Butcher  v. 
Jackson,  225  O.  G.  738 ;  Creveling  v.  Jep- 
son,  226  O.  G.  336;  Becker  v.  Bird,  228 
O.  G.  407;  Braun  v.  Wahl,  228  O.  G. 
1458;  Janin  v.  Curtis,  231  O.  G.  1539; 
Atlantic  Giant  Powder  v.  Dittmar,  1  F. 
E.  328 ;  Celluloid  v.  Crofut,  24  F.  E.  796. 
But  occasional  failure  does  not  negative 
successful  practice.  Appert  v.  Browns- 
ville, 144  F.  E.  115.  Compare  Pope  v. 
McKenzie,  176  O.  G.  1072.  Compare 


30 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


tion  as  to  whether  an  experiment138  in  a  laboratory  has  the  standing  of  a 
model  or  of  a  working  machine  in  mechanical  patents  appears  to  depend 
on  special  circumstances,  but  a139  caveat  was  a  reduction  to  a  practice  if 
full  and  complete. 

The  important  question  of140  licenses  has  comparatively  rarely  come 
up,  in  connection  with  decisions  on  process  or  composition  patents,  ex- 
cept on  questions  which  are  broader  than  the  scope  of  this  essay.  As 
in  the  case  with  mechanical  patents,  the  licensee  often  gets  more  privi- 
leges than  the  face  of  the  license  seems  to  call  for,  because  the  licensor141 
is  presumed  to  give  something  of  real  value.  The  licensee  of  a  process  is 
owner142  of  the  product  and  can  do  what  he  likes  with  it,  but  ownership 
of  a  patented  machine  is  no143  license  to  use  it  or  to  buy  others  to  use  in 
a  patented  process. 

The  construction  of  claims144  is  strictly  limited  to  what  they  cover. 
A  single  claim  cannot  cover  both  a  process145  and  machine  or 


Weintraub  v.  Hewitt,  178  O.  G.  889 ;  180 
O.  G.  882;  Lederer  v.  Walker,  182  O.  G. 
oil.  Compare  Barcley  v.  Schuler,  199 
O.  G.  309.  See  Dolbear  v.  Am.  Tele- 
phone, 126  U.  S.  1. 

But  a  fire  extinguisher  need  not  put  out 
a  very  large  fire.  Northwestern  v.  Phil- 
adelphia, 6  O.  G.  34.  The  proof  of  in- 
gredients must  be  complete.  Leighton  v. 
Barker,  14  O.  G.  199.  Compare  Buell  v. 
Shaefer,  71  O.  G.  1453.  Compare  Wurts 
v.  Harrington,  79  O.  G.  337.  In  case  of 
a  product  must  involve  use  thereof.  Silv- 
erman  v.  Hendrickson,  99  O.  G.  445.  Com- 
pare Daggett  v.  Kaufman,  145  O.  G. 
1024.  Compare  Miller  v.  Speller,  165  O. 
G.  732.  Compare  Ruping  v.  Lowry,  168 
O.  G.  1037. 

138United  Nickel  v.  California,  25  F. 
R.  475;  Blumenthal  v.  Burrell,  43  F. 
R,  667;  Michaelis  v.  Larkin,  91  F.  R. 
778;  Naylor  v.  Alsop,  168  F.  R.  911; 
Ex  parte  Carre",  4  O.  G.  180;  Cheese- 
borough  v.  Toppan,  1872  C.  D.  100.  In 
medicine  an  experiment  published,  but  of 
which  product  was  never  used,  is  an  an- 
ticipation. Parke  Davis  v.  H.  K.  Mulford, 
189  F.  R.  95.  But  public  experiment  on 
a  lamp  does  not  anticipate  a  process  pri- 
marily for  furnaces,  etc.  Schlicht  v.  Aeoli- 
pyle,  117  F.  R.  299.  Compare  Union  Car- 
bide v.  American,  172  F.  R.  136;  188  F. 
R.  334.  Compare  Stevens  v.  Sehr,  81  O.  G. 
1932.  Compare  Franklin  v.  Morton  v. 
Cooley,  95  O.  G.  2063.  Compare  Sling- 
luff  v.  Sweet,  230  O.  G.  659. 


139Colhoun  v.  Hodgson,  70  O.  G.  276; 
Gold  v.  U.  S.,  3  Fish.  489. 

HOLibby  v.  McKee,  216  F.  R.  172; 
Providence  Rubber  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall. 
788.  Implied  license  construed.  Barber 
v.  National,  129  F.  R.  370.  Compare 
Amer.  Gramophone  v.  Leeds,  155  F.  R. 
427.  Compare  N.  Y.  Phonograph  v.  Na- 
tional, 163  F.  R,  534.  See  Lawther  v. 
Hamilton,  124  U.  S.  1. 

HlCompare  Am.  Gramophone  v.  Vic- 
tor, 183  F.  R,  580;  Buffalo  Specialty  v. 
Indiana,  234  F.  R.  334;  Day  v.  Stell- 
man,  1  Fish.  487;  Goodyear  v.  Beverley, 

1  Cliff.  348;    Goodyear  v.  Cary,  1  Fish. 
424. 

142Goodyear  v.  Beverley,  1  Cliff.  348. 
Compare  Metropolitan  Washing  v.  Earlc, 

2  Fish.  203. 

143Vermont  Farm  v.  Gibson,  46  F.  R. 
488;  50  F.  R.  423. 

144Keifer  v.  Unionwerke,  231  F.  R. 
733;  Zan  v.  Quong,  47  F.  R.  901;  Sun 
Vapor  v.  Western,  48  F.  R.  682.  The 
specification  cannot  be  read  into  a  claim 
which  is  clearly  met.  Bracewell  v.  Pas- 
saic,  107  F.  R.  467. 

145Consol.  Bunging  v.  Brewing,  35  F. 
R.  73;  Ex  parte  Bate,  16  O.  G.  266. 
But  though  worded  as  a  process,  it  may 
be  construed  as  a  broad  claim  to  a  ma- 
chine. Spencer  v.  Penna.  R.  Co.,  34  F. 
R.  899.  Compare  American  Mfg.  v.  Lane, 
15  O.  G.  421.  But  see,  Dolbear  v.  Am. 
Telephone,  126  U.  S.  1. 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


31 


product.146  Claims  to  chemical  inventions  are  not  so  strictly147  limited 
in  form  as  those  to  mechanical  inventions  since  the  absence  of  substances 
can148  constitute  invention  and  be149  claimed.  The  claims  must  not,  how- 
ever, be  limited  to  a  mere150  result.  A  process  claim  must  not  be  to  the161 
mere  "use"  of  a  thing  or  ingredient.  Amendments  to  claims  are,  how- 
ever, just  as  binding152  as  in  machine  applications. 

Owing  to  the  point  of  view  of  the  U.  S.  Courts  and  U.  S.  Patent 
Office  there  is  a  natural  tendency  to  require  inventors  to  define  prod- 
ucts153 independently  of  the  process  by  which  they  are  made,  and154 
processes  independently  of  products.  This  leads  to  some  unfortunate 
results  and  is155  often  abandoned  owing  to  the  fact  that  patents  often 
turn  on  empirical  chemistry156  and  mechanics,  so  the  claims  must  be 
formulated  before  theoretical  chemistry  and  mechanics  can  supply  ade- 
quate definitions.  It  seems  likely  that  less  pressure  will  be  used  in  the 
future  in  limiting  claims  in  this  way. 

It  is  unfortunately  apparently  necessary  to  insist  that  the  inventions 
in  process  and  product  patents  must  be167  definably  new  and  be  claimed 


146Van  Camp  v.  Maryland  Pavement, 
34  F.  E.  740;  American  v.  Empire,  50 
F.  B.  929;  Durand  v.  Green,  60  F.  E. 
329;  Durand  v.  Schultze,  61  F.  E.  819; 
Ferris  v.  Batcheller,  70  F.  E.  714;  Wels- 
bach  v.  Incandescent,  101  F.  E.  131;  Mer- 
rill v.  Yoemans,  5  O.  G.  268;  94  U.  S. 
568;  Welling  v.  Eubber  Coated,  7  O.  G. 
608;  Collender  v.  Bailey,  13  O.  G.  277; 
Ex  parte  Du  Motay,  16  O.  G.  499 ;  Burt 
v.  Evory,  133  U.  S.  349;  Many  v.  Sizer, 
1  Fish.  28.  But  see  Celluloid  v.  Fred- 
erick Crane,  36  F.  E,  110. 

147A  claim  to  a  group  of  named  solv- 
ents is  valid*  Celluloid  v.  Frederick 
Crane,  36  F.  E.  110. 

USEumford  v.  N.  Y.,  134  F.  E.  385; 
Tarr  v.  Folsom,  5  O.  G.  92;  Byam  v. 
Farr,  1  Curt.  260.  In  a  process.  Law- 
ther  v.  Hamilton,  124  U.  S.  1. 

149Eumford  v.  N.  Y.,  134  F.  E.  358; 
McCormick  Waterproof  v.  Medusa,  222 
F.  E.  288;  Byam  v.  Farr,  1  Curt.  260. 
Or  nearly  free  from.  Parke  Davis  v.  H. 
K.  Mulford,  189  F.  E.  95 ;  196  F.  E.  499  ; 
United  Nickel  v.  Pendleton,  15  F.  E. 
739 ;  same  v.  Anthes,  1  O.  G.  578 ;  same 
v.  Keith,  5  O.  G.  272;  same  v.  Harris, 
17  0.  G.  325;  same  v.  Manhattan  Brass, 
4  Ban.  and  A.  173;  same  v.  Central  Pa- 
cific, 36  F.  E.  186.  Storage  battery  ele- 
ment. Electric  Storage  v.  Philadelphia, 
211  F.  E.  154. 

ISOBailey  v.  Lincoln,  4  Fish.  379. 


151Ex  parte  Mayall,  4  O.  G.  210.  Com- 
pare Foote  v.  Silsby,  2  Blatschf.  260. 

152Eoyer  v.  Coupe,  146  U.  S.  524. 

153Ex  parte  Truesdell,  1870  C.  D.  123 ; 
Ex  parte  Selbers,  2  O.  G.  246;  Ex  parte 
Arkell,  11  O.  G.  1111;  Ex  parte  Des- 
ignole,  13  O.  G.  227;  Ex  parte  Eogers, 
52  O.  G.  460;  Eisdon  v.  Medart,  158  U. 
S.  68;  Ex  parte  Scheckner,  106  O.  G. 
765;  In  re  Eoselius,  162  O.  G.  272.  In 
re  Pratt,  224  O.  G.  1407.  Contra,  ex 
parte  Painter,  57  O.  G.  999. 

154Ex  parte  Crecelius,  116  O.  G.  2531. 

155Brush  Electric  v.  Julien,  41  F.  E. 
679;  Ex  parte  Mayall,  4  O.  G.  210;  Ditt- 
mar  v.  Eix,  1  F.  E.  342;  Globe  Nail  v. 
U.  S.  Horse  Nail,  19  F.  E.  819;  Pick- 
hardt  v.  Packard,  22  F.  E.  530;  Lock- 
wood  v.  Hooper,  25  F.  E.  910,  and  cita- 
tions therein.  Especially  when  identify- 
ing tests  are  partially  relied  on.  Holiday 
v.  Pickhardt,  29  F.  E.  853. 

156Electric  Accumulator  v.  Brush,  52 
F.  E.  130. 

157Tannage  v.  Zahn,  66  F.  E.  986;  re- 
versed 70  F.  E.  1003;  Cerealine  v.  Bates, 
101  F.  E.  272;  Sanitas  v.  Voigt,  139  F. 
E.  551;  Am.  Wood  Paper  v.  Fibre,  23 
Wall.  566;  Smith  v.  Elliott,  1  O.  G.  331; 
In  re  Henry,  Mac  Arthur  467;  In  re 
Bond,  222  O.  G.  1057;  Barrett  v.  Ewing, 
228  O.  G.  761.  But  see  Eeed  v.  Street, 
34  O.  G.  339. 


32 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


by  such  definitions158  even  though  the  reasons  for  selecting  a  given  defini- 
tion are  not  wholly  clear.  A  manufacture  or  product  thereof  is  not159 
patentable  because  made  by  a  better  machine,  or  better  process. 

A  coating  has  been  held  properly  patentable160  as  such.  A  product 
is  sufficiently  defined161  if  claimed  as  ' '  coated  substantially  as  described ' ' 
or  having  the  "herein  described  characteristics."  A  product  may  be 
patentable  because  of  its162  utility  even  if  merely  purer  or  in  more163 
useful  form  than  the  prior  art  shows.  Similar  facts  are  true  of  manufac- 
tures.164 A  product  patent  will  cover165  equivalents  even  though  not166 
isolated  if  they  are  known  or  identified,167  but  if  claimed  as  the  product 
of  a  given  process  are  not  infringed  if  made  by  a  substantially  dif- 


158Jones  v.  McMurry,  13  O.  G.  16. 

159McKloskey  v.  Du'bois,  8  F.  R.  710; 
Excelsior  v.  Union  Needle,  32  F.  R.  221 ; 
Ex  parte  Selbers,  2  O.  G.  246 ;  Draper  v. 
Hudson,  3  O.  G.  354;  Ex  parte  Hibbard, 
4  O.  G.  54;  Risdon  v.  Medart,  158  U.  S. 
68.  Even  if  somewhat  better.  Wooster  v. 
Calhoon,  6  Fish.  514. 

IBOUnited  Nickel  v.  California,  25  F. 
R.  475;  Same  v.  Central  Pacific,  36  F. 
R.  186.  Same  v.  Pendleton,  15  F.  R.  739 ; 
same  v.  Melchior,  17  F.  R.  340;  same  v. 
Anthes,  1  O.  G.  578;  same  v.  Keith,  5 
O.  G.  272 ;  same  v.  Harris,  17  O.  G.  325 ; 
same  v.  Manhattan  Brass,  4  Ban.  and 
A.  173.  Also  a  silver  plated  iron  spoon. 
Wallace  v.  Noyes,  13  F.  R.  172. 

161Ex  parte  Tweedle,  10  O.  G.  747. 
Ironclad  v.  Jacob  Vollrath,  52  F.  R.  143. 
But  claims  which  merely  recite  indefinite 
properties  are  invalid.  North  American 
Chemical  v.  Keno,  227  F.  R.  63. 

162Waterbury  Brass  v.  Miller,  5  Fish. 
48;  Parke  Davis  v.  H.  K.  Mulford,  189  F. 
R.  93;  196  F.  R.  499;  Pickhardt  v. 
Packard,  22  F.  R.  530 ;  Warren  v.  Owos- 
so,  166  F.  R.  309;  on  preliminary  in- 
junction, Warren  v.  Montgomery,  172 
F.  R.  414. 

163 Adams  v.  Bridgewater,  26  F.  R. 
324;  Cerealine  v.  Bates,  101  F.  R.  272; 
Blumenthal  v.  Burrell,  43  F.  R.  667; 
Dickerson  v.  Maurer,  108  F.  R.  233 ;  Hem- 
olin  v.  Harway,  131  F.  R,  483;  Farben- 
fabriken  v.  Kuehmsted,  171  F.  R,  887; 
179  F.  R.  701;  Perkins  Glue  v.  Solva, 
223  F.  R.  729;  Badische  Anilin  v.  Ham- 
ilton, 13  O.  G.  273.  But  not  if  the  use- 


ful form  is  old,  though  rare.  American 
v.  Bridgewater,  132  F.  R,  16.  A  better 
cooked,  more  attractive  food  is  not  pat- 
entable. Sanitas  v.  Voigt,  139  F.  R. 
551;  Maryland  v.  Dorr,  46  F.  R.  773; 
So  also  ground  coffee.  Bates  v.  Duncombe, 
146  F.  R.  744.  Compare  prismatic  glass. 
Pressed  Prism  v.  Continuous,  150  F.  R. 
355.  Union  Carbide  v.  American,  172 
F.  R.  120;  infringed,  181  F.  R.  104. 
Better  keeping  qualities.  Rumford  v. 
N.  Y.,  134  F.  R.  385.  But  see  Maryland 
Hominy  v.  Baltimore,  46  F.  R.  660.  An 
insoluble  dye  does  not  anticipate  the  same 
made  soluble  by  prolonged  washing.  Bad- 
ische v.  Kalle,  104  F.  R.  802.  Claim  to 
crystaline  calcium  carbide  is  valid.  Union 
Carbide  v.  Amer.  Carbide,  188  F.  R.  334. 
But  wire  having  paraffine  compressed  into 
its  coating  is  not  patentable,  where  other 
ingredients  have  been  so  pressed.  West- 
ern Elec.  v.  Ansonia  Brass,  9  F.  R.  706. 

IGiVery  minor  modifications  of  ma 
terial  may  be  patentable  in  an  electric 
battery.  Elec.  Accumulator  v.  Brush,  52 
F.  R.  130. 

166But  an  equivalent  is  to  be  construed 
in  the  light  of  the  prior  art.  Jensen  v. 
Clay,  59  F.  R,  290. 

l66Compare  Stevens  v.  Seher,  81  O.  G. 
1932. 

167Spill  v.  Celluloid,  10  F.  R.  290. 
Read  Holiday  v.  Schulze-Berge,  78  F.  R. 
493.  Compare  Parke  Davis  v.  H.  K.  Mul- 
ford, 189  F.  R.  95;  Parsons  v.  Colgate. 
15  F.  R.  600.  But  the  burden  is  on  the 
defendant  to  show  the  different  process. 
Pickhardt  v.  Packard,  22  F.  R.  530. 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


33 


ferent168  process.  A  product  is  not  novel  if  a  description169  of  a  process 
has  been  published,  if  that  necessarily  produced  the  product.  The  kind 
of170  utility  residing  in  a  product  may  be  controlling  as  to  the  question 
of  infringement.  It  follows  from  what  has  been  said  above  that  it  is 
impossible  to  lay  down  any  controlling  rule  for  deciding  whether  it  is171 
process  or172  product  which  is  patentable  when  one  is  obvious  the  other 
given.  This  is  analogous  to  the  fact  that  a  machine  may  be173  patentable 
though  its  structure  is  obvious  once  the  problem  is  stated  which  the 
machine  solves,  though  patentability  often  resides  in  the  machine  itself. 
A  product  may  be  patentable  because  it  has  hitherto  been  unattainable, 
but  a  new  process174  makes  it  available  ;  and  where  a  process  and  product 
are  claimed  in  a  single  patent  and  are  both  infringed,  the  courts  often 
hold  the  product176  claims  good  as  a  matter  of  course  when  the  process 
is  new. 

The  doctrine  of  equivalents  is  often  difficult  of  application  in  com- 
position patents  and  some  confusion  exists  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  dic- 
tum that  a  newly  discovered176  substance  cannot  be  construed  as  an  equiv- 
alent in  infringement  suits.  An  equivalent  of  a  substance  is  another  hav- 
ing substantially  the177  same  effect  to  be  determined  by  appropriate  tests 


168Cochrane  v.  Badische,  111  U.  S.  293; 
Phimmer  v.  Sargent,  120  U.  S.  442;  Bene 
v.  Jeantet,  129  U.  S.  683;  Dittmar  v. 
Rix,  1  F.  R.  342;  Cotter  v.  New  Haven 
Copper,  13  F.  E.  234;  Jensen  v.  Clay, 
59  F.  R.  290.  Expanded  Metal  v.  Board 
of  Education,  111  F.  R.  395.  A  product 
is  not  patentable  though  made  by  a  new 
process,  if  old  in  itself.  Societe  Fabri- 
rique  v.  George  Lueders,  135  F.  R.  102; 
142  F.  R.  753.  Compare  Victor  v.  Amer- 
ican, 151  F.  R.  601. 

169In  re  Griffith,  187  O.  G.  517.  Com- 
pare Hosier  v.  Hosier,  127  U.  S.  345. 

170Union  Tubing  v.  Patterson,  23  F.  R. 
79;  Celluloid  v.  Chrolithion,  23  F.  R. 
397;  Blumenthal  v.  Burrell,  43  F.  R. 
667 ;  American  Gramophone  v.  Walcutt, 
87  F.  R.  556;  Am.  Gramophone  v.  Leeds, 
87  F.  R.  873;  Byerley  v.  Sun,  184  F.  R, 
455;  Jenkins  v.  Johnson,  5  Fish.  433. 

171Both  often  are  patentable.  R. 
Thomas  v.  Electric,  111  F.  R.  923.  Com- 
pare National  Enamelling  v.  N.  E.,  151 
F.  R.  19. 

172Oval  Wood  v.  Sandy  Creek,  60  F.  R. 
285 ;  International  v.  William  Cramp, 
202  F.  R.  932. 

173Tnternational    Curtis   v.    W.    Cramp, 


211  F.  R.  124;  Hiehle  Printing  v.  Whi- 
lock,  223  F.  R.  647;  Snook -Roentgen  v. 
Stetson,  237  F.  R.  204. 

174Thomson  Electric  Welding  v.  Barn- 
ey, 227  F.  R.  428;  Hobbs  v.  King,  8 
F.  R.  91;  Providence  Rubber  v.  Good- 
year, 9  Wall.  788;  Hoffman  v.  Stiefel, 

3  Fish.  638;    Waterbury  Brass  v.  Miller, 
5  Fish.  48. 

175Consolidated  v.  Hassam  Paving,  227 
F.  R.  436. 

176Welling  v.  Le  Bau,  34  F.  R.  40; 
Hoke  Engraving  v.  Schraubstadter,  47 
F.  R.  506;  American  Sulphite  v.  Hink- 
ley,  217  F.  R.  57 ;  Hunising  v.  American 
Sulphite,  228  F.  R.  700;  Goodyear  v. 
Davis,  12  O.  G.  1;  Standard  Paint  v. 
Bird,  175  F.  R.  346;  Bailey  v.  Lincoln, 

4  Fish.  379;    Colgate  v.  Law,  5  Ban.  and 
A.  437 ;    Goodyear  v.  Berry,  3  Fish.  439. 

177Treibacher  Chemische  v.  Roessler, 
219  F.  R.  210;  Tyler  v.  Boston,  7  Wall. 
327 ;  Francis  v.  Mellor,  1  O.  G.  48 ;  Jenk- 
ins v.  Walker,  1  O.  G.  359;  Wonson  v. 
Gilman,  11  O.  G.  1011;  Atlantic  Giant  v. 
Mowbray,  12  O.  G.  Ill;  Wonson  v.  Pe- 
terson, 13  O.  G.  548;  Clark  v.  Johnson, 
17  O.  G.  1401;  18  O.  G.  1276;  Pratt  v. 
Thompson,  72  O.  G.  1347 ;  Ryan  v.  Good- 


34 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


especially  practical  use,  but  novel178  physical  characteristics  may  create 
novelty  even  though  chemical  tests  show  articles  to  be  old.  A  chemical 
analysis  may  be  controlling  where  no179  adequate  explanation  is  offered 
by  defendants.  It  is  the  utility  wThich  is  controlling,  and  a  composition 
having  new180  utility,  not  previously  obtainable  by  those  skilled  in  the 
art  is  patentable  even  though  it  differs  from  another  only  in  degree181 


win.l  Bobb.725;  Goodyear  v.  Wait, 3  Fish. 
242;  Matthews  v.  Skates,  1  Fish.  602; 
Holiday  v.  Pickhardt,  12  F.  B.  147;  Co- 
lumbia Chemical  v.  Butherford,  58  F.  B. 
787;  Standard  v.  Bird,  65  F.  B.  509; 
Propfe  v.  Coddington,  108  F.  B.  86;  A. 
B.  Dick  v.  Pomeroy,  117  F.  B.  154 ;  Hem- 
olin  v.  Harway,  138  F.  B,  54;  Sloan  v. 
Portland,  139  F.  B.  23;  Mauer  v.  Dick- 
erson,  113  F.  B.  870;  Farbenfabriken  v. 
Kuehmsted,  171  F.  B.  887;  179  F.  B. 
701;  Atlantic  Giant  Powder  v.  Dittmar 
Powder,  9  F.  B.  316;  Pasteur  Chamber- 
land  Filter  v.  Funk,  52  F.  B.  146 ;  Blount 
v.  Societe  etc.  Filter,  53  F.  B.  98;  Bead 
Holiday  v.  Schultz-Berge,  78  F.  B.  493; 
Clark  v.  Johnson,  4  F.  B.  437;  Parsons 
v.  Colgate,  15  F.  B.  600;  United  Nickel 
v.  Pendleton,  15  F.  B.  39 ;  Boyer  v.  Chi- 
cago, 20  F.  B.  853;  Spill  v.  Celluloid,  21 
F.  B.  631;  22  F.  B.  94;  Commercial  v. 
Fairbank,  27  F.  B,  78.  Scope  depends 
on  prior  art.  Spill  v.  Celluloid,  10  F.  B. 
290.  Soft  solder  in  form  of  a  paste  is 
not  anticipated  by  hard  solder,  or  by 
what  is  called  solder  but  is  not  the  same. 
Kupfer  v.  Westinghouse,  212  F.  B.  184. 
An  alloy  patent  is  infringed  by  the  same 
alloy  plus  other  ingredients  if  the  theory 
and  utility  of  the  patent  will  cover  it. 
Hoskins  v.  General  Elec.  212  F.  B.  422. 
In  a  process.  Harrisburgh  v.  N.  Y.,  217 
F.  B.  366;  Compare  Vollrath  v.  Corn- 
stock,  59  O.  G.  1105.  In  infringement 
compare  Oriental  v.  De  Jonge,  234  F:  B. 
895;  and  235  F.  B.  294. 

178Ex  parte  Sommer,  58  O.  G.  1255; 
Eastman  v.  Hinkel,  5  Ban.  and  A.  1; 
Plastic  Slate  v.  Moore,  1  Holmes  167; 
Elec.  Accumulator  v.  Brush,  52  F.  B.  130 ; 
Bridgeport  v.  Hooper,  5  F.  B.  63;  Co- 
lumbia Chemical  v.  Butherford,  58  F.  B. 
787.  Solubility  which  makes  useful.  Bad- 
ische  v.  Kalle,  104  F.  B.  802;  Badische 
v.  Klipstein,  125  F.  B.  543.  But  not 
merely  because  powdered.  Milligan  v. 
Upton,  6  O.  G.  837;  97  U.  S.  3.  Com- 
pare ex  parte  Frasch,  77  O.  G.  1427.  But 
see  Adams  v.  Loft,  4  Ban.  and  A.  495. 


179General  Bakelite  v  Nikolas,  225  F. 
B.  539;  Kiesele  v.  Haas,  32  F.  B.  794; 

A.  B.  Dick  v.  Belke,  86  F.  B.  149;  Bad- 
ische v.  Klipstein,  125  F.  B.  543;    Haar- 
man-De  v.  Van  Dyk,  165  F.  B.  934.    But 
the  analysis  must  be  adequate  and  clear. 
Hentschel   v.    Carthage,    169    F.   B.    114; 
and  Byam  v.  Eddy,  2  Blatschf.  521.    But 
see  Allen  v.  Hunter,  6  McLean,  303. 

ISONational  Enamelling  v.  N.  E.,  139 
F.  B.  643;  Chadeloid  v.  De  Bonde,  146 
F.  B.  988;  Warren  v.  Owosso,  166  F.  B. 
309;  Warren  v.  N.  Y.,  187  F.  B.  831; 
Commercial  Acetylene  v.  Avery,  166  F. 

B.  907;    Kupfer  v.  Westinghouse,  212  F. 
B.  184;    Hoskins  v.  General  Electric,  212 
F.    B.    422;     Bead    Holiday    v.    Schulze- 
Berge,    78    F.    B.   493;     Columbia   Chem- 
ical v.  Butherford,  58  F.  B.  787;    A.  B. 
Dick  v.   Belke,    86   F.   B.    149;     King  v. 
Anderson,  90   F.  B.   500;    Panzl  v.   Bat- 
tle  Island,    138   F.    B,    48;     Non   hydro- 
scopic.    Hemolin  v.  Harway,  138  F.  B.  54. 
But   the   mere    idea    of    having   it    ready 
does  not  make  it  patentable.     Ohio  Var- 
nish v.   Glidden,  215  F.   B.  902.     But  it 
must  be  defined  by  its  ingredients  rather 
than    its   useful    properties.      North    Am. 
Chemical  v.  Keno,  227  F.  B.  63.     Merely 
adulterated   food   is   not   patentable.     In 
re  Weida,  6  O.  G.  681.    An  applicant  can 
submit  affidavits  as  to  utility  of  combina- 
tion.    Ex  parte  Boclgers,  16  O.  G.  1233. 
A  composition  in  which  an  element  has  no 
utility  is  not  patentable.     Ex  parte  Dan- 
ford,  131  O.  G.  942.     But  see  Adams  v. 
Loft,  4  Ban.  and  A.  495.     A  mortar  may 
differ  patentably  from  a  paint.     PJast it- 
Slate  v.  Moore,  1  Holmes  167.     Compare 
Gordon  v.   Turko-Halvah,  233  F.  B.  430. 

ISlPanzl  v.  Battle  Island,  132  F.  R. 
607;  138  F.  B.  48;  Keasbey  v.  Philip 
Carey,  139  F.  B.  571;  Ajax  v.  Brady, 
155  F.  B.  409;  reversed  160  F.  E.  84; 
Warren  v.  Owosso,  166  F.  B.  309;  War- 
ren v.  Montgomery,  172  F.  B.  414;  Bad- 
ische v.  Kalle,  104  F.  B.  802;  Cleveland 
v.  U.  S.,  52  F.  B.  385;  McCormick  v. 
Medusa,  222  F.  B.  288;  Woodward  v. 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


35 


of  ingredients.  No  composition  is  novel  within  the  meaning  of  patent 
law  which  is  merely  made  of182  better  materials  and  which  is  only  such  a 
composition  as  a  physician  or  expert183  in  the  art  might  be  expected  to 
prescribe  or  devise;  nor  one  which  is  an184  artificial  matching  of  a 
natural  compound.  Similar  considerations  control  the  question  of  in- 
fringement185. Thus  a  patent  will  not  be  construed  to  cover  a  composi- 
tion not  within  its  terms,  and  only  accidentally186  nearly  equivalent.  So 
it  follows  that  a  really  novel  composition  cannot  be  rejected  on  an  aggre- 
gation187 of  references  though  a  new  composition  may  infringe188  an  old 
one,  but  the  mere  discovery  of  new  properties  in  a  composition  or  manu- 
facture189 otherwise  old  does  not  make  it  patentable.  Broad  names  in  a 


Morrison,  2  O.  G.  120;  Badische  Anilin 
v.  Hamilton,  13  O.  G.  273 ;  Badische  Ani- 
lin v.  Higgin,  14  O.  G.  414;  Cahill  v. 
Beckf  ord,  Holmes  48 ;  Goodyear  v. 
AVait,  3  Fish.  242;  Jenkins  v.  John- 
son, 5  Fish.  433;  Plastic  Slate  v. 
Moore,  1  Holmes  167.  Oily  sawdust  which 
will  not  stain, — see  decision  and  dissent, 
('otto  Waxo  v.  Perolin,  185  F.  R.  267. 
Bituminous  macadam.  Warren  v.  N.  Y. 
187  F.  R.  831.  Homologues  in  chemis- 
try. Parke  Davis  v.  H.  K.  Mulford,  189 

F.  R.  95. 

182Bucken  v.  McKesson,  7  F.  R.  100; 
Smith  v.  Murray,  27  F.  R.  69.  Adding 
lard  oil  to  wax  not  patentable.  A.  B. 
Dick  v.  Wichelman,  108  F.  R.  961. 
Analogous  material.  Rumford  v.  Lauer, 
3  O.  G.  349;  and  Rumford  v.  Hecker, 
3  O.  G.  353. 

183U.  S.  v.  Merrimack,  9  O.  G.  202; 
Fn  re  Shaefer,  66  O.  G.  514;  Bender  v. 
Hoffman,  85  O.  G.  1737.  In  re  Wels- 
bach,  179  O.  G.  1111;  Boykin  v.  Baker, 
9  F.  R.  699;  Welling  v.  Crane,  21  F.  R. 
707;  Peoria  Target  v.  Cleveland,  47  F. 
R.  725;  Ex  parte  Crippen,  Hart's  Di- 
gest 238;  43  Mss.  C.  D.  Such  as  a  mix- 
ture of  anilin  colors.  Ex  parte  Landen- 
berger,  1871  C.  D.  179.  Or  a  paint  con- 
taining oxide  of  copper.  Tarr  v.  Webb, 
2  0.  G.  568.  Partially  coked  coal  is  not 
Datentable.  Musgrave  v.  Comr.  of  Pats., 
78  O.  G.  2047. 

184Cochrane  v.  Badische,  111  U.  S.  293; 
Hoskins  v.  Matthes,  108  F.  R.  404.  Com- 
pare Tarr  v.  Folsom,  5  O.  G.  92.  The 
fibre  obtained  from  a  given  source  is  not 
patentable.  Ex  parte  Latirner,  46  O. 

G.  1638.      But    see,    in    re    Corbin,    Mac 
Arthur,  521. 

185Impure  will  not  infringe  pure  where 


composition  is  indefinite.  Blumenthal  v. 
Burrell,  53  F.  R.  105.  Nor  will  all  dry 
mince  meat  infringe  the  first  patent  to 
dry  mince  meat.  Dougherty  v.  Doyle, 
59  F.  R.  470 ;  63  F.  R.  475.  See  Blum- 
enthal v.  Burrell,  43  F.  R.  667;  King  v. 
Anderson,  90  F.  R.  500;  Pittsburgh  Iron 
v.  Seaman,  236  F.  R.  756. 

186Kirk  v.  Elkins,  19  F.  R.  417.  Contra, 
N.  Y.  Pharm.  v.  Tilden,  14  F.  R.  740. 

187Ryan  v.  Goodwin,  1  Robb.  725; 
Brown  v.  Hewitt,  MacArthur,  310.  But 
it  is  not  patentable  where  the  ingredients 
and  their  properties  are  well  known.  Well- 
ing v.  Crane,  14  F.  R.  571.  But  a  com- 
position is  novel  even  though  a  chemist 
by  long  experimenting  might  have  dis- 
covered the  novel  combination.  Celluloid 
v.  Am.  Zylonite,  35  F.  R.  301.  But  not 
if  experimenting  seems  obvious.  A.  B. 
Dick  v.  Wichelman,  105  F.  R.  629;  108 

F.  R.    961.     A   rearrangement   of   ingre- 
dients of  a  food  in  specific  proportions  is 
patentable.    Ex  parte  Heide,  8  O.  G.  817. 
A  beverage  having  a  new  flavor  is  pat- 
entable.    Rogers  v.  Ennis,  14  O.  G.  601. 

188Atlantic   Giant   v.   Mowbray,    12    O. 

G.  Ill;    Atlantic  Giant  v.  Goodyear,   13 
O.   G.  45;     Eastman   v.   Hinckel,   5   Ban. 
and  A.  1 ;    Goodyear  v.  Rust,  3  Fish.  456 ; 
Goodyear  v.   Berry,   3   Fish.   439;     Good- 
year v.  Evans,  3  Fish.  390. 

189General  Electric  v.  Yost,  139  F. 
R,  568;  Dorian  v.  Guie,  25  F.  R.  816; 
Royer  v.  Willemsen,  40  F.  R.  158.  But 
old  ingredients  may  co-act  in  a  new  way 
to  create  patentability.  McEwan  v. 
White,  63  F.  R.  570.  But  if  new  and  use- 
ful is  patentable  because  of  even  only 
solubility.  Badische  v.  Kalle.  104  F.  R. 
802;  Stow  v.  Chicago,  104  U.  S.  547; 
Ex  parte  Todd,  185  O.  G.  250;  In  re 
French,  186  O.  G.  991. 


36 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


patent  do  not  entitle  the  patentee  to  cover  elements  which  are  not190 
equivalents  for  the  purpose  -of  the  patentee  in  view  of  the  prior  art,  and 
similar  facts  hold191  interference  practice. 

''Manufactures"  as192  used  in  the  patent  law  has  a  very  compre- 
hensive sense,  embracing  whatever  is  made  by  the  art  or  industry 
of  man,  not  being  a  machine,  a  composition  of  matter  or  a  de- 
sign. In  manufactures  the  kind  of  utility193  is  often,  if  not 
usually,  controlling  in  questions  both  of  patentability194  and  infringe  - 


190In  a  process  Philadelphia  v.  Davis, 
84  F.  E.  881;  79  F.  E.  357.  Adding  a 
well-known  substance  to  any  composition 
is  invalid.  Boon  v.  Himnan,  1870  C.  D. 
7;  Clarke  v.  Johnson,  17  0.  G.  1401; 
18  O.  G.  1276.  Compare  (Incandescent 
Lamp  Patent),  Consolidated  v.  McKees- 
port,  ]59  U.  S.  465;  Compare  Stevens 
v.  Seher,  81  O.  G.  1932.  Compare  Ben- 
der v.  Hoffman,  85  O.  G.  1737.  Compare 
interferences.  Wilson  v.  Ellis,  211  O.  G. 
286. 

191Wilson  v.  Ellis,  211  0.  G.  286. 
Two  compositions  do  not  interfere  when 
their  vital  elements  are  not  the  same. 
Jackson  v.  Nichols,  1871  C.  D.  278. 

192Eiter-Conley  v.  Aiken,  203  F.  E. 
699.  But  see  Jacobs  v.  Baker,  7  Wall. 
295.  Compare  ex  parte  Ackerson,  1869 
C.  D.  75. 

193Lockwood  v.  Hooper,  25  F.  E.  910; 
same  v.  Cutter,  11  F.  E.  794;  same  v. 
same,  18  F.  E,  635;  same  v.  Cleveland, 
18  F.  E.  37;  Ova  Wood  v.  Sandy  Creek, 
60  F.  E.  285;  Binns  v.  Zucker,  70  F.  E, 
711;  Thompson  v.  Bushnell,  96  F.  B. 
238,;  Welsbach  v.  Eex,  94  F.  E.  1001;  E. 
Thomas  v.  Electric,  111  F.  E.  923 ;  Am. 
Sulphite  v.  De  Grasse,  157  F.  E.  660; 
Commercial  Acetylene  v.  Avery,  166  F. 
E.  907;  Arbetter  v.  Lewis,  154  O.  G. 
516;  In  re  Hodginson,  182  O.  G.  251; 
Chicago  Film  v.  Motion,  186  F.  E.  989; 
General  Electric  v.  Laco,  233  F.  E.  96; 
Tuck  v.  Bramhill,  3  Fish.  400;  In  re 
Heath,  230  O.  G.  335;  Jenkins  v.  Wal- 
ker, 1  O.  G.  359;  Goodyear  v.  Smith,  5 
0.  G.  585;  Goodyear  v.  Eoot,  6  O.  G. 
154;  Goodyear  v.  Willis,  7  O.  G.  41; 
Smith  v.  Goodyear,  93  U.  S.  486;  Phil- 
lips v.  Detroit,  16  O.  G.  627;  Ex  parte 
Shannon,  59  O.  G.  297 ;  Nimmy  v.  Comr. 
Pats.,  86  O.  G.  345;  Marsden  v.  Comr. 
Pats.,  87  O.  G.  1239.  The  first  board 
which  really  replaces  lath  and  plaster  is 
patentable.  Sackett  v.  Eatkowsky,  167 


F.  E.  138.  Colored  asphalt  roofing. 
Standard  Paint  v.  Bird,  175  F.  E.  346. 
Corrugated  nail.  Dunbar  v.  Field,  4  F. 

E.  543;    Gilbert  v.  Watzelhan,  197  F.  E. 
315;    Dart  v.  Saylor,  212  F.  E.  407;  Stil- 
well   v.    McPherson,    218   F.   E.    839.     A 
fabric  is  anticipated  by  substantially  the 
same,   even  though   too   narrow  to  fulfill 
the  utility  of  the  patented  fabric.    Smith 
v.   Elliott,   1   O.   G.   331.     Wooden  pipes 
coated  with  boiled  tar  and  sawdust,  novel 
over  tar  and  sand.     Hobbie  v.  Smith,  27 

F.  E.  656.     Shoe  tip  of  muslin  stiffened 
with   shellac,   not    anticipated   by   rubber 
tip  or  fabric  alone.     Shuter  v.  Davis,  16 
F.  E.  564.     An  insulator  made  by  fusing 
not  patentable  over  mere  cementing.     In 
re  Locke,  94  O.  G.  432.     But  see  King 
v.  Gallum,  109  U.  S.  99;    and  Phillips  v. 
Detroit,  111  U.  S.  604.    See  N.  Y.  Belt  v. 
Magowan,  141  U.  S.  332.    '  <  Filament ' '  in 
electric  lamp.     Edison   Electric  v.  U.  S. 
Elec.,  52  F.  E.  300.     But  utility  must  be 
revolutionary    or    the    patent    is   invalid. 
Johnson   v.   Hero   Fruit   Jar.     55   F.   E. 
659. 

194Schillinger  v.  Gunther,  14  0.  G.  713; 
same  v.  same,  11  O.  G.  831;  same  v.  same, 
16  O.  G.  905;  same  v.  Perine,  8  F.  E. 
821;  New  York  Belting  v.  Magowan,  27 
F.  E.  362;  141  U.  S.  332;  Shannon  v. 
Brunner,  33  F.  E.  289;  Electric  Accumu- 
lator v.  N.  Y.,  50  F.  E.  81;  Accumu- 
lator v.  Edison,  63  F.  E.  979;  Hatch  v. 
Electric  Storage,  100  F.  E.  975;  A.  B. 
Dick  v.  Fuerth,  57  F.  E.  834:  Brush  v. 
Milford,  58  F.  E,  387;  A.  B.  Dick  v. 
Wichelman,  74  F.  E.  800;  American  Gram- 
ophone v.  Leeds,  87  F.  E.  873;  Forsyth 
v.  Garlock,  142  F.  E.  461;  Ex  parte 
Gunther,  1871  C.  D.  199;  Ex  parte  Lup- 
ton,  5  O.  G.  489;  Lewis  v.  Semple,  177 
F.  E.  407;  Ex  parte  Phillips,  12  O.  G. 
311;  Ex  parte  Odheimer,  49  O.  G.  1693; 
Cheneau  v.  Comr.  Pats.,  70  O.  G.  924; 
California  v.  Schalicke,  119  U.  S.  401; 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


37 


nient.195  The  claims  will  often  be  held196  invalid  unless  they 
bring  out  the  utility  or  some197  cooperation  of  elements  which 
will  serve  as  an  identifying  test.  The  underlying  theory  of  co- 
ordination of  elements  of  a  manufacture  or  composition  itself 
is  often  controlling  in  deciding  questions  of  novelty198  and  in- 


Hurlburt  v.  Schillinger,  130  U.  S.  456; 
Rajah  v.  Emil,  188  F.  K.  73;  American 
Rolled  Gold  v.  Coe,  212  F.  R.  720;  Rem- 
busch  v.  Bennethum,  214  F.  R.  257;  Stead 
Lens  v.  Kryptok,  214  F.  R.  368;  Fitch- 
burg  Duck  v.  Barrell,  214  F.  R;  777; 
Sporting  v.  Haskell,  217  F.  R.  407;  Ex 
parte  Milligan,  1871  C.  D.  215.  Ticket 
in  terms  of  money  instead  of  mileage 
valid.  Rand  McNally  v.  Exchange  Script, 
187  F.  R.  984;  but  see  same,  203  F.  R. 
278.  Size  controls.  Johnston  v.  Ameri- 
can Heat,  48  F.  R.  446.  But  the  struc- 
ture must  be  really  new.  Browning  v. 
Colorado,  61  F.  R.  845.  Compare  Am. 
Split  Feather  v.  Levy,  43  F.  R.  381. 
Compare  Andrews  v.  Thum,  67  F.  R.  911. 
Digester  with  continuous  cement  lining 
valid.  Am.  Sulphite  v.  Rowland,  80 
F.  R.  395.  No  utility  in  new  coordina- 
tion,— void.  Am.  Steel  v.  Denning,  160 
F.  R.  125.  The  first  board  which 'really 
replaces  lath  and  plaster  is  patentable. 
Sackett  v.  Rathowsky,  167  F.  R.  138. 
But  making  it  in  continuous  sheets  or 
larger  than  it  was  does  not  make  a  new 
article.  Ex  parte  Cobb,  5  O.  G.  751.  Ribs 
in  new  place  in  rubber  shoe  not  patent- 
able.  Meyer  v.  Prichard,  7  O.  G.  1012. 
Gutta  percha  covered  wire  has  new  utility 
as  electric  conductor;  patentable  though 
other  things  had  been  so  covered.  Colgate 
v.  Western  Union,  14  O.  G.  943. 

195Commercial  Acetylene  v.  Avery,  166 
F.  R.  907 ;  California  Artif .  v.  Starr,  52 
F.  R.  297;  American  Sulphite  v.  St. 
Regis,  217  F.  R.  51;  Brown  v.  Rubber 
Step,  13  O.  G.  369 ;  Rubber  Step  v.  Met- 
ropolitan, 13  O.  G.  549;  Goodyear  v. 
Mullee,  3  Fish.  209;  Ready  v.  Taylor,  3 
Ban.  and  A.  368;  Strong  v.  Nobel,  3 
Fish.  586;  Kuhl  v.  Mueller,  21  F. 
R.  510;  California  Artif.  Stone  v. 
Freeborn,  17  F.  R.  735;  Schillinger  v. 
Middleton,  31  F.  R,  736;  Schillinger  v. 
Gunther,  11  O.  G.  831;  Tibbe  v.  Mis- 
souri, 62  F.  R.  158;  Thrall  v.  Poole,  89 
F.  R.  718.  A  "thread"  covers  a  "band" 
where  utility  is  the  same.  Haskell  v.  Per- 
fect, 143  F.  R.  128.  A  series  of  coatings 


breaking  joints  covers  a  continuous  one. 
American  Sulphite  v.  Burgess,  103  F.  R. 
975.  Glue  and  glycerine  in  lining  pipe. 
Taylor  v.  Archer,  4  Fish.  449,  but  com- 
pare Union  Tubing  v.  Patterson,  27  F.  R. 
79. 

196Hide  Ite  v.  Fiber,  226  F.  R.  34;  Ex 
parte  Rogers,  49  O.  G.  1361.  But  see 
Ex  parte  Pease,  202  O.  G.  631.  The 
utility  so  brought  out  must  be  novel.  Mil- 
ton v.  Jordan,  208  F.  R.  569. 

197Daniel  Green  v.  Dodgeville,  210  F. 
R.  164.  The  elements,  not  the  resulting 
composition  should  have  its  properties  de- 
fined. North  Am.  Chemical  v.  Keno,  227 
F.  R.  63. 

198Brown  v.  Dist.  of  Columbia,  130  U. 
S.  87 ;  Gandy  v.  Main  Belting,  143  U.  S. 
487;  In  re  Carpenter,  112  O.  G.  503.  In 
re  Faber,  136  O.  G.  229;  In  re  Harbeck, 
191  O.  G.  586;  In  re  Ferris,  192  O.  G. 
745;  In  re  Groves,  200  O.  G.  856;  Burt 
v.  Evory,  133  U.  S.  349 ;  Reed  v.  Street, 
34  O.  G.  339;  De  Florez  v.  Reynolds,  3 
Ban.  and  A.  292;  McEwan  v.  McEwan, 
91  F.  R.  787;  Am.  Grass  v.  Choate,  159 
F.  R,  140;  Western  Tube  v.  Rainear, 
156  F.  R.  49;  159  F.  R.  431;  Hogan  v. 
Westmoreland,  167  F.  R.  327;  Electric 
Storage  v.  Philadelphia,  211  F.  R.  154; 
Dart  v.  Saylor,  212  F.  R.  407;  Consoli- 
dated v.  Hassam,  227  F.  R.  436;  Welling 
v.  Rubber  Coated,  7  O.  G.  606;  reversed 
97  U.  S.  7;  Dalton  v.  Nelson,  9  O.  G. 
1112;  Collender  v.  Came,  10  O.  G.  467; 
Epinger  v.  Richey,  12  O.  G.  714.  Love- 
joy  v.  Hill,  17  O.  G.  331;  Ex  parte  Strong 
17  O.  G.  446.  Collar  fabric  made  of 
sheets  of  celluloid  and  linen,  not  antici- 
pated by  liquid  celluloid  on  linen  collars. 
Celluloid  v.  Chrolithion,  23  F.  R.  397;  25 
F.  R.  482.  Nor  does  non-celluloid  anti- 
cipate celluloid  structure.  Celluloid  v. 
Chrolithion,  24  F.  R.  275.  See  also  Cel- 
luloid v.  Am.  Zylonite,  35  F.  R.  417.  A 
better  bicycle  rim  is  not  patentable  when 
only  an  evolution.  Pope  v.  Clark,  46 
F.  R.  789.  Even  if  it  is  only  saving 
great  expense.  Edison  v.  Novelty,  167 
F.  R.  977.  In  a  composition.  Chadeloid 


38 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


fringement,199  though  the  terms  of  a200  specification  will  often 
control,  as  well  as  the  prior  art.201  A  manufacture,202  like  a 
door  mat  having  patterns  to  produce  shadow  effects  is  patentable 
(as  a  design),  but  mere  printing203  on  an  old  fabric  is  not  patentable204 
even  to  produce  a  mercantile205  form,  though  a  street  car  transfer  ticket 
may  be  patentable206  because  of  the  utility  of  the  notations  printed  there- 
on as  mechanical  aids  to  the  conductor  issuing  the  transfer.  Adding  details 
to  or  using  improved  materials  on  an  old  structure  to  fit  it  for  new207  use 
will  not  ordinarily  make  it  patentable,  but  where  some  totally208  unex- 
pected utility  becomes  apparent  thereby,  the  new  manufacture  is  pat- 
entable, and  a  patent  will  be  construed  to  cover  other  manufactures 


v.  Wilson,  220  F.  R.  681;  224  F.  R.  481. 
Porcelain  knob  not  patentable.  Hotch- 
kiss  v.  Greenwood,  11  How.  248.  Or 
where  a  new  material  makes  a  new  utility. 
Smith  v.  Goodyear,  93  U.  S.  486. 

199N.  Y.  Asbestos  v.  Ambler  Asbestos, 
103  F.  K.  316;  H.  W.  Johns  v.  Robert- 
son, 60  F.  K.  900;  77  F.  R,  985;  At- 
lantic v.  Climax,  72  F.  R.  925;  Steel 
Clad  v.  Mayor,  77  F.  R.  736;  reversed 
80  F.  R.  904;  A.  B.  Dick  v.  Wichelman, 
80  F.  R.  519;  Peerless  Rubber  v.  White, 
118  F.  R.  827;  Chadeloid  v.  De  Ronde, 
146  F.  R.  988;  Electric  Storage  v.  Phil- 
adelphia, 211  F.  R.  154;  American  Roll 
Gold  v.  Coe,  212  F.  R.  720;  Forsyth  v. 
Clapp,  4  O.  G.  527;  Welling  v.  Rubber 
Coated,  7  O.  G.  606;  Goodyear  v.  Flagg, 
9  O.  G.  153;  Dalton  v.  Nelson,  9  O.  G. 
1112;  Goodyear  v.  Davis,  12  O.  G.  1; 
102  U.  S.  222;  Hoff  v.  Iron  Clad,  139 
IT.  S.  326;  Voorhees  Rubber  v.  MacDon- 
ald,  231  F.  R.  741;  Herzog  v.  Keller, 
234  F.  R.  85;  De  Florez  v.  Reynolds,  3 
Ban.  and  A.  292;  U.  S.  Metallic  v.  Hew- 
itt, 236  F.  R.  739.  In  a  composition. 
Chadeloid  v.  Wilson,  220  F.  R.  681;  224 
F.  R.  481. 

200Thompson  v.  Jennings,  66  F.  R.  57 ; 
Steel  Clad  v.  Davison,  80  F.  R.  904;  81 
F.  R.  868;  George  Frost  v.  Cohn,  119 
F.  R.  505;  Gilbert  v.  Watzelhan,  197  F. 
R.  316;  Standard  Paint  v.  Bird,  218  F. 
R.  373;  Trussed  v.  Corrugated,  222  F. 
R,  514;  Orr  v.  Aschenbach,  225  F.  R. 
71. 

'  201Thompson  v.  Jennings,  66  F.  R.  57; 
Atlantic  v.  Climax,  72  F.  R.  925.  A  mere 
reversing  of  the  prior  structure  may  be 

patentable.  Edison  v.  Novelty,  167  F. 
R,  977. 


202N.  Y.  Belt  v.  N.  J.  48,  F.  R.  556; 
137  U.  S.  445;  53  F.  R.  810.  See  also 
Royce  v.  Fineld,  18  F.  R.  262.  Compare 
enamelled  steel.  National  Enamelling  v. 
N.  E.}  139  F.  R,  643;  reversed  151  F. 
R.  19.  But  a  collar  made  from  embossed 
paper  is  not  patentable.  Union  v.  Le- 
land,  7  0.  G.  221. 

203Compare  ex  parte  Loewenberg,  1869 
C.  D.  92.  Nor  making  celluloid  imitate 
onyx.  Arlington  v.  Celluloid,  97  F.  R. 
91. 

204Brigham  v.  Coffin,  149  U.  S.  557. 
Compare  Union  Paper  Collar  v.  Van 
Deusen,  •  23  Wall.  530. 

205So  a  method  of  bookkeeping  is  not 
patentable.  Hotel  v.  Lorraine,  155  F.  R. 
298. 

206Cincinnati  v.  Pope,  210  F.  R.  443. 
Compare  Benj.  Menu  v.  Rand,  210  F.  R. 
285;  and  ex  parte  Moeser,  118  O.  G.  590; 
123  O.  G.  655.  Compare  Hollister  v.  Ben- 
edict, 113  U.  S.  59. 

207De  La  Vergne  v.  Valentine,  66  F. 
R.  765;  Reynolds  v.  Standard,  68  F.  R. 
483;  Plastic  v.  City,  97  F.  R.  620;  N. 
Y.  Belt  v.  Sierer,  158  F.  R.  819;  Smith 
v.  Nichols,  21  Wall.  112;  Union  Paper 
Collar  v.  Van  Deusen,  23  Wall.  530.  Not 
even  if  cheapness  of  manufacture  is  ob- 
tained. Cover  v.  Am.  Thermo  Ware,  188 
F.  R.  670.  Can  with  joints  both  soldered 
and  lap  clamped,  void.  Combined  Pat- 
ents v.  Lloyd,  11  F.  R.  153.  Foundation 
honey  comb  patent  mentioning  wax  as 
ingredient,  anticipates  wax  foundation. 
Van  Deusen  v.  Nellis,  18  F.  R.  596. 

208Griffith  v.  Murray,  46  F.  R.  660; 
Collins  v.  Gleason,  68  F.  R.  915;  Geo. 
Frost  v.  Cohn,  119  F.  R.  505;  Cellu- 
loid v.  Chrolithion,  25  F.  R.  482. 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS.  39 

avoiding  the  terms  of  the  claim  but  attaining  the  same  unexpected209 
utility.  So  the  fact  that  structures  are  integral210  does  not  ordinarily 
make  them  patentable,  but  the  question  of  analogous211  arts  in  this 
question  and  with  reference  to  other  manufactures,  is  one  on  which  it 
seems  impossible  to  lay  down  any  broad  principle  not  varying  with  the 
meaning  of  the  phrases  '  '  analogous  art  '  '  and  '  '  common  knowledge.  '  '  An 
article  devised  so  as  to  be  made  by  machinery  is  not212  patentable  where 
a  similar  one  was  hand  made. 

In  the  interest  of  equity  a  given  fabric  is  held  not  patentable  when 
a213  patent  exists  on  a  tire  made  from  the  fabric,  and  a  coated  paper  is 
not  patentable  when  a  patent  exists  for  coating  whose214  primary  use 
is  to  make  the  same  paper.  Here  of  course  identity  of  invention  is  ap- 
parent, whereas  the  paper  bag  making  process216  patent  the  machine 
and  process  were  held  absolutely  independent. 

Patent  Office216  practice  is  often  severe  compared  with  Court  prac- 
tice, but  this  is  often  justified  because  an  applicant  has  many  remedies 
while  his  application  is  pending,  but  almost  none,  except  a  hazardous  re- 
issue, after  his  application  is  patented.  It  is  now  held  that  where217 
process  and  apparatus  are  mutually  dependent  they  may  be  joined  in  one 
application?  but  usually218  not  otherwise,  but  the  whole  matter  lies  in  the 
discretion  of  the  Office  which  may  sometimes  permit  a  process,  a  product 
and  a  machine  to  be  included  in  one  application219  and  also  a 

209Celluloid    v.    Chrolithion,    23    F.    K.  215Eastern  Paper  Bag  v.  Standard,  30 

397  ;    25  F.  It.  482  ;    United  Indurated  v.  F.    E.    63.      Compare   ex   parte   Kerr,   53 

Whippany,  83  F.  E.  485.     But  not  when  O.   G.  919. 

the  difference  between  the  prior  art  and  2l6See,  on  division  of  applications,  Ee- 

the  patent  is  difficult  to  define.     Societe  port    Of    Commissioner    of    Patents,    235 

Anon.  v.  Allen,  84  F.  B.  812  ;    but  see  ap-  Q.  G    at  704. 

peal,  90  PR.  815;    Geo.  Frost  v    Cohn,  217Ex         te  MeMah         48  a  a  255; 


I'  5'  ??n;    ?TntaloIiSTiJ-  ^TS'  Ex  Parte  Lord,  50  O.  G.  987;    Ex  parte 

,™  R'  1i°.;ubut  8ee/v       !      •  Norwood,  50  O   G.  1129;    Ex  parte  Hyde, 

810But  a  built-up  wood  bicycle  rim  was  go    Q    G>    1293       Ex      ^    £v          *  63' 

patentable        Fairbanks     Wood     Rim     V.  Q    G    1381      steinmetj  v.  Allen    19£  u. 

Moore,  78  PR.  490  .Compare  Excelsior  g    543      Ex         te  Ament    U6  Q    Q    5Q6 
Drum  v.  Bortel,  190  F.  E.  10.     Compare  ' 

Dodge    v.    Ohio     101    F.    E.    584.      Com-  »«Ex  parte  Herr    41   O    G.  463;     Ex 

pare  Ex  parte  Grayson,  68  0.  G.  1021.  g11*6^^  *4  ?JQG"  *45'    ^X  Parfe 

211Eubber  eraser  with  soft  finish,  valid  ?,rasch    »1    O.   G.    4o9;     Ex   parte   Fish 

over    other    soft    rubber    articles.      Lock-  ?1    O-    G     1615.      Compare    Old  I    Rule   41 

wood  v.  Hooper,  25  F.  E.  910,  and  cita-  m  ex  Parte  Bo«cher,  88  O.  G.  545.    Com- 

tions  therein  Pare  Ga^e  v-  Kell°g^  23  F-  R.  891.   Com- 

212  American   Whip   v.   Hampden,   4   F.  P*™    ex    parte    Blythe,    30    O.    G.    1321; 

R,  536;    Eoehr  v.  Bliss,  82  F.  E.  445.     Or  Compare  in  re  Frasch,  100  O.  G.  1977. 
made    by    swaging    instead    of    casting.  219Ex  parte  Elbers,    12   O.   G.   2;     Ex 

Strom    v.    Weir,    83    F.    E.    170.      Com-  parte  Dailey,  13  O.  G.  288.     Often  it  is 

pare  Eynear  v.  Evans,  83  F.  E,  696.  safe  to  apply  separately.     Victor  Talking 

213Palmer  v.  Lozier,  90  F.  E.  732.  v.  Am.  Gramophone,  189  F.  E.  359.     But 

214Underwood  v.  Gerber,  149  IT.  S.  224.  see  ex  parte  Cobb,  16  O.  G.  175. 


40 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


process,220  sub  process,  and  sub  products.  "Where  the  division  has  been 
required  the  process  will  not  be  rejected  on  the221  apparatus  and  func- 
tional claims  should  be222  rejected,  not  required  to  be  divided  out. 

A  drawing  illustrating223  the  process  must  be  furnished  if  the 
process  is  capable  of  illustration.  The  Examiner224  may  require  demon- 
stration of  operativeness  of  a  process. 

It  is  impossible  to  lay  down  any  line  which  will  justify  the  de- 
cisions225 requiring  division  between  process  and  product226  and  re- 
versing such  requirement.  But  it  is  settled  that  having  elected  one 
species  the  applicant  cannot227  shift  to  another  except  where  otherwise 
great228  hardship  would  result.  Two  arts  cannot  be  covered  in  the229 
same  patent  if  divisible.  Division  is  usually  required  between  a  com- 


220Ex  parte  Du  Hotay,  16  O.  G.  1002; 
Ex  parte  Elbers,  1877  C.  D.  123;  Ex 
parte  Oxnard,  88  O.  G.  1526.  For  di- 
vision in  interference  see  ex  parte  Pow- 
rie,  99  O.  G.  2549;  Power  v.  Proeger, 
101  O.  G.  3108;  Ex  parte  Davis,  105 
O.  G.  1783;  Ex  parte  Du  Motay,  16  O. 
G.  1002. 

221Ex  parte  Chambers,  51  O.  G.  1943. 
And  process  claims  will  not  be  suggested 
to  an  applicant  claiming  apparatus  only. 
Ex  parte  Werner,  139  O.  G.  197.  Com- 
pare Bowers  v.  Von  Schmidt,  80  F.  R. 
122;  Finley  v.  Chapman,  1  O.  G.  277.' 

222Ex  parte  Steinmetz,  117  O.  G.  901. 
Compare  ex  parte  Smyth,  114  O.  G.  762. 
Ex  parte  McClellan,  59  O.  G.  1763.  Ex 
parte  Williams,  61  O.  G.  423. 

223Compare  ex  parte  Hafely,  64  O.  G. 
559.  Compare  ex  parte,  Russell,  84  O.  G. 
2021.  Compare  ex  parte  Henry,  99  O.  G. 
1170;  Ex  parte  Carter,  16  O.  G.  809. 

224Ex  parte  Wynne,  176  O.  G.  1070. 

225Ex  parte  O'Neill,  16  O.  G.  1049; 
Ex  parte  David,  16  O.  G.  1139;  Ex 
parte  Tainter,  47  O.  G.  135;  Ex  parte 
Greenfield,  58  O.  G.  274 ;  Ex  parte  Tyme- 
son,  83  O.  G.  593;  Ex  parte  Murmann, 
93  O.  G.  1721;  Ex  parte  Erdman,  93 
O.  G.  2531;  Ex  parte  Keid,  96  O.  G. 
2060;  Ex  parte  Parent,  98  O.  G.  1970; 
Ex  parte  Powell,  99  O.  G.  1384;  Ex  parte 
Foulis,  100  O.  G.  232 ;  Ex  parte  Lee,  100 
O.  G.  233;  Ex  parte  Cowper-Coles,  100 
O.  G.  681;  Ex  parte  Schmidt,  100  O.  G. 
2602;  Ex  parte  Christensen,  105  O.  G. 
1261;  Ex  parte  Williams,  105  O.  G. 
1780;  Ex  parte  Adams,  106  O.  G.  541; 


Ex  parte  Very,  106  O.  G.  766;  Ex  parte 
Frasch,  117  O.  G.  1166;  In  re  Frasch, 
122  O.  G.  1048;  Ex  parte  Stemple,  197 
O.  G.  997;  Compare  Hosier  v.  Hosier, 
127  U.  S.  354.  Compare  Goodyear  v. 
Wait,  3  Fish.  242.  But  the  validity  of  a 
patent  is  not  affected  if  both  stand  in 
one  application.  R.  Thomas  v.  Electric 
111  F.  R.  923.  For  division  in  case  of 
interference  see  ex  parte  Powrie,  99  O. 
G.  2549. 

226Ex  parte  Tyne,  17  O.  G.  56;  Ex 
parte  Young,  33  O.  G.  1390;  Ex  parte 
de  la  Sala,  42  O.  G.  95 ;  Ex  parte  Fefel, 
57  O.  G.  409;  Ex  parte  Curtis,  57  O.  G. 
1128;  Ex  parte  Hines,  60  O.  G.  576;  Ex 
parte  Demeny,  64  O.  G.  1649;  Ex  parte 
Thomson,  66  O.  G.  653;  Ex  parte  Kny, 
65  O.  G.  1403;  Ex  parte  Bennett,  105  6. 
G.  1262;  Ex  parte  Dallas,  106  O.  G. 
996.  Compare  ex  parte  Scott,  147  O.  G. 
520.  Compare  ex  parte  Blair,  43  O.  G. 
113. 

227Ex  parte  Wohltmann,  16  O.  G.  723 ; 
Ex  parte  Zabel,  43  O.  G.  627 ;  Ex  parte 
Eschner,  63  O.  G.  760;  Ex  parte  Aberli, 
91  O.  G.  2371;  Ex  parte  Randall,  95  O. 
G.  2063;  Ex  parte  Ferrell,  106  O.  G. 
766;  Ex  parte  Feld,  112  O.  G.  252;  Ex 
parte  Walker,  113  O.  G.  284;  Ex  parte 
Lawley,  113  O.  G.  1967;  Ex  parte  Stroll, 
180  O.  G.  1137;  Ex  parte  Stimson,  22(1 
O.  G.  699.  Compare  ex  parte  HcDougall, 
18  O.  G.  130.  Compare  ex  parte  Hop- 
kinson,  54  O.  G.  264. 

228Ex  parte  Trevette,  97  O.  G.  1173. 

229Ex  parte  Rappleye,  85  O.  G.  2096; 
Ex  parte  Osborne,  86  O.  G.  492. 


AND  ALLIED  PATENT  PROBLEMS. 


41 


position  and  a  structure  or  method230  of  using  it.  Also  between  a231 
machine  and  its  product.  A  method  of  making  a  matrix  and  an  article 
made  therein  must  be  applied  for232  separately,  also  a  composition233 
and  its  container.  It  was  formerly  held  with  some234  degree  of  logic 
that  a  composition  patent  could  contain  but  a  single  claim.  The  better 
practice  in  the  Patent  Office  is  that  the  various  claims  for  a235  process 
or  a  composition236  may  bear  the  relation  of  genus  and  species,  if  the 
utility  of  each  claim  for  the  incomplete  process  or  composition  is  set 
forth  in  the  specification.  A  claim  must  not237  be  alternative,  but  an 
applicant  should  be  allowed  great238  latitude  in  drawing  claims. 

A  claim  is239  "functional"  when  it  merely  claims  a  "principle"  or 


230Ex  parte  Tschirner,  97  O.  G.  187. 
Compare  ex  parte  Clay,  101  O.  G.  2567; 
Ex  parte  Stocking,  101  O.  G.  2823. 

231Ex  parte  Murray,  3  O.  G.  659;  Ex 
parte  Chamberlain,  6  O.  G.  544;  Ex 
parte  Junker,  11  O.  G.  110;  Ex  parte 
Wintherlich,  16  O.  G.  404;  16  O.  G.  808. 
Compare  ex  parte  Chapman,  102  O.  G. 
820. 

232Ex  parte  Jennens,  108  0.  G.  1587. 

233Ex  parte  Baker,  4  O.  G.  155. 

234Ex  parte  Lippincott,  16  O.  G.  632. 
Compare  ex  parte  Wheat,  16  O.  G.  360. 
Compare  Panzl  v.  Battle  Island,  138  F. 

E.  48. 

235Ex  parte  Wilson,  16  O.  G.  96;  Ex 
parte  Smith,  16  O.  G.  630;  Slade  v. 
Blair,  17  O.  G.  261;  Ex  parte  McDoug- 
all,  18  O.  G.  130. 

236Ex  parte  Hentz,  26  O.  G.  437;  Ex 
parte  Gassmann,  90  O.  G.  959. 

237Ex  parte  Caldwell,  120  O.  G.  2125; 
Ex  parte  Phillips,  135  O.  G.  1801.  But 
see  In  re  Ellis,  167  O.  G.  981. 

238Ex  parte  Pease,  202  O.  G.  631;  Ex 
parte  Kilbourn,  221  O.  G.  737.  Compare 
Byerley  v.  Barber,  230  F.  E.  995.  But 
see  ex  parte  Chapman,  120  O.  G.  2446. 

239Mershon  v.  Bay  City  Box,  189  F.  E. 
741;  Matthews  v.  Stoneberger,  4  F.  E. 
635;  Brainard  v.  Cramme,  12  F.  E.  621; 
Hatch  v.  Moffit,  15  F.  E.  252;  Eeay  v. 
Berlin  and  Jones  Envelope,  191  F.  E. 
311;  Same  v.  Eaynor,  19  F.  E.  308; 
Dryfoos  v.  Wiese,  19  F.  E.  315;  124  U.  S. 
32;  Chicopee  Folding  Box  v.  Eogers,  32 

F.  B.   695;    Columbus  v.  Bobbins,  64  F. 

E.  384;     Wells    Glass   v.    Henderson,    67 

F.  E.  930;    Gindorff  v.  Deering,  81  F.  E. 
952;     Stokes   v.    Heller,    96    F.    E.    104; 
Cleveland    v.    Detroit,    131    F.    E.    740; 


American  v.  Sexton,  139  F.  E.  564; 
Queen  v.  Friedlander,  149  F.  E.  771; 
Conroy  v.  Penn,  155  F.  E.  421;  Penn  v. 
Conroy,  159  F.  E.  943;  Am.  Steel  v. 
Denning,  160  F.  E.  108;  169  F.  E.  739; 
A.  B.  Dick  v.  Henry,  160  F.  E.  690; 
Union  Match  v.  Diamond,  162  F.  E.  148 ; 
Eastern  Dynamite  v.  Keystone,  164  F.  E. 
47 ;  Breuchau^  v.  Mutual,  166  F.  E.  753 ; 
Eoyden  Marble  v.  Davis,  189  F.  E.  622; 
W.  B.  Mershon  v.  Bay  City,  189  F.  E. 
741;  U.  S.  v.  Selma  Fruit,  195  F.  E. 
264;  Ball  v  Coker,  210  F.  E.  278; 
Union  v.  Singer,  215  F.  E.  598;  Spirella 
v.  Nubone,  216  F.  E.  898;  O'Eeilly  v. 
Morse,  15  How.  62;  Burr  v.  Duyee,  1 
Wall.  531;  Case  v.  Brown,  2  Wall.  320; 
Eenwick  v.  Pond,  2  O.  G.  392;  Marsh  v. 
Dodge,  5  O.  G.  398;  Ex  parte  Holmes, 
6  O.  G.  360;  Wheeler  v.  Simpson,  6  O. 
G.  435;  Case  v.  Hastings,  7  O.  G.  557; 
Ex  parte  Hahn,  8  O.  G.  597;  Ex  parte 
Shippen,  8  O.  G.  726;  Ex  parte  Keith, 
9  O.  G.  793;  Ex  parte  Harrison,  10  O. 
G.  373;  Swain  v.  Ladd,  11  0.  G.  153; 
Fuller  v.  Yentzer,  94  U.  S.  288;  94  U. 
S.  299;  Henderson  v.  Cleveland,  12  O. 
G.  4;  Ex  parte  Eoloson,  15  O.  G.  471; 
Ex  parte  Barrett,  45  O.  G.  125;  Ex 
parte  Young,  46  O.  G.  1635;  Ex  parte 
Jaeger,  46  O.  G.  1637;  Ex  parte  Kerr, 
53  O.  G.  919;  Moulton  v.  Comr.  of  Pats., 
61  O.  G.  1480;  Ex  parte  Holt,  68  O.  G. 
536;  Ex  parte  Knudsen,  72  O.  G.  589; 
Ex  parte  Halfpenny,  73  O.  G.  1135;  Eis- 
don  v.  Medart,  158  U.  S.  68;  Boyden 
v.  Westinghouse,  170  U.  S.  537;  Ex 
parte  Cunningham,  101  O.  G.  2288;  102 
O.  G.  842;  Busch  v.  Jones,  184  U.  S. 
599;  Ex  parte  McClain,  119  O.  G.  1585; 
Ex  parte  Dixon,  123  O.  G.  653;  Ex  parte 


42 


CHEMICAL  PATENTS 


function,  or  when  it  fails  to  state  any  industrial  utility  of  the  invention 
in  terms  of  the  environment  to  which  the  invention  contributes  the  new 
function.  The  question  of  what  is  "new  matter"240  in  a  process  or  com- 
position application  is  obscure  in  view  of  the  wording  of  the  statute. 
' '  Substantially  as  described ' '  is241  sufficient  definition  in  a  claim. 

Verbose  and  indefinite242  specifications  and  closely  parallel243  claims 
are  just  as  objectionable  as  in  mechanical  patents,  so  also  are  nebulous 
claims,  arid  claims  which  are  not  clearly  directed  to244  either  a  process 
or  composition  or  a  manufacture,  and  therefore  are  indefinite  but245 
extra  descriptive  matter  in  claims  may  be  ignored  by  the  Examiner. 


Bullock,  127  O.  G.  1580;  Ex  parte  Plumb, 
131  O.  G.  1165;  Ex  parte  Bitner,  140 
O.  G.  256;  Leeds  and  Catlin  v.  Victor, 
213  U.  S.  301;  Continental  Paper  v. 
Eastern,  210  U.  S.  414;  In  re  Tallraadge, 
174  O.  G.  1219;  In  re  Gold,  180  O.  G. 
606;  Burke  Electric  v.  Independent,  232 
F.  K.  145;  Parham  v.  American  Button- 
hole, 4  Fish.  468;  In  re  Fessenden,  226 
O.  G.  1081.  Compare  in  re  Gardner,  140 
O.  G.  258;  Functional  claims  may  be  re- 
issued as  machine.  Motion  Picture  v. 
Laemmle,  214  F.  K.  787;  Compare  Stim- 
son  v.  Woodman,  10  Wall.  1117.  Com- 
pare ex  parte  Pacholder,  51  O.  G.  295. 


240Ex  parte  Gottstein,  11  O.  G.  1061; 
Ex  parte  Dieckerhoff,  12  O,  G.  429;  Ex 
parte  Temple,  12  O.  G.  795. 

241Ironclad  v.  Jacob  J.  Vollrath,  52  F. 
E.  143. 

242Ex  parte  Elbers,  1877  C.  D.  123; 
Schlicht  v.  Aeolipyle  Co.,  117  F.  E.  299. 
They  may  be  too  indefinite.  Matheson  v. 
Campbell,  78  F.  E.  910. 

243Schlicht  v.  Aeolipyle,  117  F.  E.  299; 
National  Enamelling  v.  N.  E.,  151  F.  E. 
19. 

244Ex  parte  Designolle,  13  O.  G.  227. 
Compare  ex  parte  Wintherlich,  17  O.  G. 
55. 

245Ex  parte  Designolle,   13  O.  G.  227. 


TABLE  OF  CASES, 

(References  are  to  Notes.) 


A-berli,  227. 

A.  Bf  Dick  v.  Belke,  179,  180. 

—  v.  Fuerth,  194. 
v.  Henry,  75,  239. 

-  v.  Pomeroy,  177. 

v.  Underwood,  5,  131. 

v.  Wichelman,  182,  187,  194,  199. 

Accumulator  v.  Edison,   194. 

v.  Consolidated     Elec.      Storage, 

119. 

-  v.  Julien,  95. 

v.  Ach,  93. 

v.  Ackerson,  192. 

Acme  Acetylene  v.  Commercial,  92,  97. 
Acme  Steel  v.  American,  111. 
Adams,   225. 
Adams  v.  Bridgewater,  38,  93,  163. 

-  v.  Loft,  178,  180. 

-  v.  Tannage,   75. 

Adams  and  Westlake  v.  Wilson,  114. 
Adamson  v.  Dederick,  43. 
Ajax  v.  Brady,  85,  181. 
Alabastine  v.  Payne,  123. 
Alden  v.  Brown,  52. 
Allen  v.  Alter,  90,  131. 

-  v.  Hunter,  77,  179. 
Allen  Evaporating  v.  Bowen,  57. 
Alvin  v.  Scharling,  91. 

Am  Ende  v.  Seabury,  126. 
Ames  v.  Howard,  1. 
Andrews  v.  Carman,  77,  87. 

—  v.  Eames,  125. 

-  v.  Thum,  194. 

Ansonia  Brass  v.  Electrical,  75,  85. 
Appert  v.  Brownsville,  137. 

v.  Parker,  95. 

-  v.  Schmertz,  67,  137. 
Appleton  v.  Ecaubert,  79. 

v.  Starr,  30,  50. 

Ament,  217. 

American  Crayon  v.  Sexton,  239. 

-  Featherbone  v.  Warren,  131. 
Fibre  Chamois  v.  Buckskin,  7,  40. 

-  Fibre  Chamois  v.  Port  Huron,  43, 

109. 

-  Gramophone  v.  Gimbel,  19,  97. 

—  Gramophone  v.  Victor,  141. 

—  Gramophone  v.  Walcutt,  170. 
Grapiiophone   v.    Leeds,   33,    140, 

170,   394. 


American  Grapiiophone  v.  Universal,  33, 
40,  75. 

Grass  v.  Choate,  198. 

-  Mfg.  v.  Lane,  14o. 

Mercerizing  v.  Hampton,  85. 

Middlings  v.  Atlantic,  107. 

Nicholson    Paving    v.    Elizabeth, 

126  . 

-  Boiled  Gold  v.  Coe,  194,  199. 

-  Solid  v.  Empire,  146. 

-  Split  Feather  v.  Levy,  194. 

Steel  v.  Denning,  194,  239. 

Stove  v.  Cleveland,  114,  115. 

Strawboard  v.  Elkhart,  30. 

Sulphite  v.  Burgess,  195. 

Sulphite  v.  De  Grasse,  193. 

Sulphite  v.  Hinkley,  176. 

-  Sulphite  v.  Howland,  194. 

Sulphite  v.  St.  Regis,  195. 

Tube  v.  Bridgewater,  85,  163. 

Whip  v.  Hampden,  212. 

Wood  Paper  v.  Fiber,  62,  82,  93, 

157. 

Wood  Paper  v.  Heft,  25. 

Arbetter  v.  Lewis,  193. 

Arkell,  153. 

Arlington  v.  Celluloid,  51,  203. 

Arnold  v.  Pettee,  52. 

v.  Phelps,  24,  78,  90. 

Asbestos  Shingle  v.  H.  W.  Johns,  75,  104, 
105. 

v.  Rock,  75,  105. 

Atlantic  Dynamite  v.  Climax,  199,  201. 
Atlantic  Giant  v.  Dittmar,  84,  137,  177. 

-  v.  Goodyear,  107,  188. 

v.  Mowbray,   177,   188. 

v.  Parker,  81. 

v.  Rand,  81,  107. 

Atwood,  103. 


B. 


Badische  Anilin  v.   Hamilton,   104,   163, 
181. 

v.  Higgin,  104,  181. 

v.  Kalle,  81,  163,  178,  179. 

v.  Klipstein,  178. 

Bailey  v.  Lincoln,  150,  176. 
Bainbridge  v.  Kitehell,  75. 
Baker,  233. 

Baker  v.  Duncombe,  75. 

Baker  Lead  v.  National,  84,  85,  114,  115, 


43 


44 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(Eeferences  are  to  Notes.) 


Ball  v.  Coker,  43,  239. 

Ballon  v.  Potter,  22,  77,  88. 

Barber  v.  National,  140. 

Barcley  v.  Schuler,  137. 

Barney,  77. 

Barrett,  239. 

Barrett  v.  Ewing,  157. 

Barrow  v.  Wetherill,  27,  67. 

Bartey  v.  Lincoln,  7. 

Bate,  145. 

Bates  v.  Buncombe,  163. 

Beach  v.  Fowler,  137. 

Bean  v.  Smallwood,  1. 

Becker  v.  Bird,  137. 

Bedford  v.  Comr.  of  Pats.,  95. 

Bell  v.  Gray,  10,  17,  48. 

Bender  v.  Engel,  131. 

v.  Hoffman,  183,  190. 

Bene  v.  Jeantet,  22,  77,  168,  131. 

Benj.  Menu  v.  Rand,  206. 

Bennett,  226. 

Benson,  106. 

Berardini  v.  Tocci,  72. 

Berolzheimer,  72. 

Beryle  v.  San  Francisco,  39. 

Bethlehem  v.  Niles,  52,  56. 

Bettendorf  v.  J.  A.  Little,  75. 

Bierce,  72. 

Binder  v.  Atlanta,  115. 

Binns  v.  Zucker,  193. 

Bissel  v.  Robert,  132. 

Bitner,  239. 

Black  v.  Thome,  126. 

Blackmore,  75,  77,  107. 

Blair,  226. 

Blair  v.  Jeanette,  115,  119. 

Blakesley   Novelty  v.    Connecticut    Web, 

81,  88. 

Blount  v.  Societe  etc.  Filter,  177. 
Blumenthal  v.  Burrell,  138,  163,  170,  185. 
Blumer,  41. 
Blythe,  218. 
Bogart  v.  Hinds,  16. 
Bond,  157. 

Boneless  v.  Roberts,  68,  125. 
Bonsack  v.  Elliot,  75. 
Boon  v.  Hinman,  190. 
Boston  Elastic  v.  Easthampton,  10. 
Bottling  v.  Anheuser  Busch,  80,  81. 
Boucher,  218. 
Bowers  v.  Pacific,  91. 

v.  San  Francisco,  81. 

v.  Von  Schmidt,  81,  221. 

Bowker  v.  Dows,  123. 
Bowman  v.  De  Grauw,  75. 
Boyd  v.  Cherry,  85,  123. 
Boyden  v.  Westinghouse,  10,  239. 


Boykin  v.  Baker,  183. 

Boynton  v.  Taggart,  131. 

Bracewell  v.  Passaic,  22,  144. 

Braemer,  90. 

Brainard  v.  Gramme,  239. 

Braun  v.  Wahl,  137. 

Braunstein  v.  Holmes,  136. 

Brett  v.  Quintard,  93. 

Breuchaud  v.  Mutual,  33,  35,  36,  239. 

Bridge  v.  Brown,  131,  137. 

Bridgeport  v.  Hooper,  178. 

Brigham  v.  Coffin,  204. 

Brown  v.  Dist.  of  Columbia,  198. 

v.  Hewitt,   187. 

v.  Piper,  75. 

v.  Rubber  Step,  195. 

v.  Thome,  102,  114. 

Browning  v.  Colorado,  194. 
Bruff  v.  Ives,  79,  90. 
Brummit  v.  Howard,  75. 

Brush  Electric  v.  Accumulator,  95. 

v.  Julien,  155. 

v.  Milford,  194. 

Buchanan  v.  Howland,  25,  26. 
Bucken  v.  McKesson,  182. 
Buell  v.  Shaeffer,  137. 

Buffalo  Specialty  v.  Indiana,  141. 

Bullier  v.  Willson,  133. 

Bullock,  239. 

Bullock  Electric  v.  Crocker,  39,  66,  97. 

-  v.  Westinghouse,  10,  123. 
Bump 's  v.  Gessler,  90. 

Burdon  v.  Williams,  44,  51,  81,  84. 
Burke  Electric  v.  Independent,  239. 
Burr  v.  Cowperthwaite,  50,  60. 

v.  Duryee,  37,  60,  239. 

-  v.  Prentiss,  111. 
Burrell  v.  Elgin,  52. 

Burt  v.  Evory,  18,  146,  198. 

Busch  v.  Jones,  75,  239. 

Butterfield,  49. 

Butz,  46. 

Buzzell  v.  Andrews,  13. 

Byam  v.  Eddy,  179. 

v.  Fair,  148,  149. 

Byerley  v.  Barber,  51,  81,  90,  238. 

v.  Ellis,  90,  92. 

v.  Standard  Asphalt,  90,  92. 

v.  Sun,  45,  170. 

Byerly  v.  Cleveland,  40,  81,  126. 

v.  Sun,  126. 

C. 

Cahill  v.  Beckford,  113. 

v.  Brown,  81. 

v.  Lockford,  181. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(References  are  to  Notes.) 


Caldwell,  237. 

California  Artif.  Stone  v.  Freeborn,  195. 

v.  Sehalicke,  194. 

-  v.  Starr,  195. 

('aim  v.   Schweinitz  v.  Dolley  v.  Geislcr, 

334. 

Cambria  v.  Carnegie,  126. 
Cameron  Septic  v.  Knoxville,  95. 

-  v.  Village,  41,  81. 
( 'umpbell,  55. 

Carborundum  v.  Electric,  85,  130. 

Carew  v.  Boston,  46,  107,  127. 

Carmichael  v.  Jackson,  75. 

Carnegie  v.  Cambria,  23,  33,  79,  85,  117. 

Carpenter,  198. 

Carre,  138. 

Cary  v.  De  Haven,  119. 

v.  Lovell,  38,  81,  116. 

v.  Miller,  91. 

v.  Wolf,  114,  115,  116. 

Case  v.  Brown,  239. 

-  v.  Hastings,  239. 

Casein  v.  A.  M.  Collins,  107,  114  . 
Carter,  223. 
(Jaunt  v.  United,  68. 

Celluloid  v.   Am.   Zylonitc,   61,   114,   125, 
187,  198. 

v.  Arlington,  115,  119. 

v.  Cellonite,  91,  126. 

v.  Chrolithion,  170,  198,  208,  209. 

v.  Comstock,  90,  125. 

v.  Crofut,   84,   137. 

v.  Eastman,  92. 

-  v.  Frederick  Crane,  146,  147. 
v.  Noyes,  75. 

v.  Pratt,  90,  125. 

-  v.  Russell,  77,  88. 

—  v.  Tower,  88,  90,  125. 
Century  Elec.  v.  Wagner,  114. 

'  v.  Westinghouse,  102,  113. 

Cerealine  v.  Bates,  22,  24,  43,  109,  157, 

163. 
Chadeloid  v.  Daxe,  92. 

v.  De  Eonde,  180,  199. 

v.  Thurston,  44,  82. 

v.  Wilson,  198,  199. 

Chaffee  v.  Boston  Belting,  131. 
Chamberlain,  231. 
Chambers,  221. 

Champney,  51. 
Chapman,  80,  231,  238. 
Chase,  50,  76. 

Chase  v.  Fillebrown,  28,  79,  81,  92. 
Cheeseborough  v.  Toppan,  138. 
Chemical  v.  Eaymond,  22,  78. 
Cheneau  v.  Comr.  Pats.,  194. 
Chicago  v.  Charles  Pope,  40,  53,  71. 


Chicago  Film  v.  Motion,  193. 
Chicopee  Folding*  Box  v.  Rogers,  239. 
Chinnock  v.  Patterson,  92. 
Chisholm  v.  Canastota,  80,  114. 

-  v.  Fleming,  34,  60,  80,  125. 

-  v.  Johnson,  34,  60,  86,  125. 
—  v.  Randolph,  80,  85. 

Christensen,  225. 

Cimiotti  Unhairing  v.  Am.  Fur,  14,  18. 

Cincinnati  v.  Pope,  206. 

Clark  v.  Johnson,  177,  190. 

v.  Kennedy,  91. 

Clay,  230. 

Clement  v.  Upson,  49,  93. 

Clerk  v.  Tannage,  118. 

Cleveland  v.  Detroit,  54,  101,  239. 

Cleveland  Target  v.  U.  S.  Pigeon,  90,  92, 

181. 

Clinton  v.  Wright,  46,  79. 
Coal  and  Coke  v.  Ernst,  41,  44. 
Cobb,  194,  219. 
Cochrane  v.  Badische,  105,  168,  184. 

-  v.  Deener,  47,  79. 
Codington  v.  ±ropfe,  130,  131. 
Cohen  v.  U.  S.  Corset,  81. 
Coldren  v.  Empire,  43. 
Colgate  v.  Gold,  81. 

v.  Western  Union,   194. 

Colhoun  v.  Hodgson,  139. 
Collender  v.  Bailey,  146. 

-  v.  Came,  198. 
Collins  v.  Gleason,  208. 

v.  White,  131. 

Colton,  50. 

Columbia  Chemical  v.  Rutherford,  177, 
178,  180. 

Columbus  v.  Robbins,  239. 

Combined  Patents  v.  Lloyd,  207. 

Combustion  Utilities  v.  Worcester  Gas- 
light, 47,  60,  61,  113,  114,  115. 

Commercial  v.  Fairbank,  50,  90,  95,  177. 

Acetylene  v.  Acme,  95,  98. 

Acetylene  v.  Avery,  180,  193, 195. 

-  Acetylene  v.  Searchlight,  95,  98. 
Commissioner  of  Patents,  Report  of,  216. 
Commos  v.  Somers,  109. 

Continental  Paper  v.  Eastern,  239. 
Continuous  v.  Schmertz,  126. 
Conroy  v.  Penn,  50,  239. 
Consolidated  Bunging  v.  Brewing,  145. 
Bunging  v.  Peter,  115. 

Contract  v.   Hassam  Paving,  40, 

175,  198. 

-  Electric  v.  McKeesport,  190. 
Corbin,  184. 

Corn  Products  v.  Douglas,  117,  119. 
Corner  v.  Kyle,  136. 


46 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(References  are  to  Notes.) 


Corning  v.  Burden,  10,  IS,  50. 

Cotter  v.  New  Haven  Copper,  109,  168. 

Cottle  v.  Krementz,  63. 

Cotto  Waxo  v.  Perolin,  90,  181. 

Coulton,  60. 

Cover  v.  Am.  Thermo  Ware,  207. 

Cowen  v.  Boston,  88. 

Cowper-Coles,  225. 

Crane  v.  Meriam,  100. 

Crecelius,  61,   154. 

Crescent  v.  Gottfried,  39,  67,  88. 

Creveling,  24,  99,  102. 

Creveling  v.  Jepson,  137. 

Crippen,  183. 

Croskey  v.  Atterbury,  137. 

Crowell  v.  Harlow,  53. 

v.  Sim,   131. 

Crown  Cork  v.  Aluminum,  2. 

v.  American,    24. 

-  v.  Brooklyn,  90,  92,  115. 
Cunningham,  239. 
Curtis,  226. 


D. 


Daggett  v.  Kaufman,  137. 

Dailey,  219. 

Dallas,  226. 

Dalton  v.  Nelson,  198,  199. 

Damon  v.  Eastwick,  34,  84. 

Danford,  180. 

Daniel  Green  v.  Dolgeville,  40,  81,  197. 

Dart  v.  Saylor,  193,  198. 

Uavey  v.  Cutter,  34. 

Davis,  220,  225. 

Day  v.  Stellman,  141. 

Daylight  v.  Ameican,  51. 

Dayton  v.  Westinghouse,  58. 

Dececo  v.  Gilchrist,  5,  18. 

Decker,   81. 

Dederick  v.  Cassell,  28,  100. 

De  Florez  v.  Keynolds,  198,  199. 

De  Lamar  v.  De  Lamar,  39,  60. 

de  la  Sala,  226. 

De  La  Vergne  v.  Valentine,  207. 

Delaware    Metal    Refining    v.    Woodfall, 

65,  119. 
Demeny,  226. 
Deprez  v.  Bernstein  v.  Hunter  v.  Gaulard, 

81,  95. 

Designolle,  153,  244,  245. 
Detmold  v.  Eeeves,  54,  77. 
Detroit  Copper  v.  Mine,  18. 
Dewey  v.  Colby,  106. 
Diamond  v.  Brown,  13,  126. 

v.  Dean,  41. 

v.  Westinghouse,  95,  96. 


Dick,  see  A.  B.  Dick. 

Dickerson  v.  Maurer,  81,  163. 

Dieckerhoff,  240. 

Dieckmann  v.  Milwaukee,  10,  44. 

Dittmar  v.  Rix,  24,  155,  168. 

Dixon,  37,  72,  239. 

Dodge  v.  Collins,  65. 

v.  Ohio,  210. 

Doelger  v.  German-American,  29. 
Dolbear  v.  Am.  Telephone,  114,  137,  145. 
Donaldson  v.  Marbolith,  46,  115. 

v.  Roksament,   46. 

Donner  v.  Am.  Sheet,  77. 

Dorian  v.  Guie,  85,  86,  189. 

Dosselman,  24. 

Doubleday  v.  Bracheo,  25. 

Dougherty  v.  Doyle,  185. 

Downs  v.  Teter-Heany,  24,  68,  115. 

Downton  v.  Yeager  Milling,  77,  81. 

Doyle  v.  McRoberts,  131. 

Draper  v.  Hudson,  159. 

Dreyfus  v.  Searle,  50,  83. 

Droop,  43. 

Dryfoos  v.  Wiese,  239. 

Du  Motay,  146,  220. 

Dunbar  v.  Field,  193. 

Dunkley  v.  Beekhuis,  114. 

Durand  v.  Green,  146. 

-  v.  Schultze,    146. 
Dutcher  v.  Jackson,  137. 


E. 


Eachus  v.  Broomall,  100. 

Eagleton  v.  West,  107. 

Eames  v.  Andrews,  81,  91,  107,  113. 

Eastern  Dynamite  v.  Keystone.  239. 

Eastern  Paper  Bag  v.  Standard,  39,  41, 

103,  215. 
Eastman  v.  Getz,  52,  109. 

v.  Hinkel,  178,  188. 

Edison,  96,  99,  102, 
Edison  v.  Allis,  30,  57,  65. 

v.  Hardie,  32. 

— .-  v.  Klaber,  90. 

v.  Novelty,  198,  201. 

v.  U.  S.  Elec.,  193. 

Eibel  v.  Remington,  12,  34. 
Eisenstein  v.   Fibiger,  75. 
Elbers,  219,  220,  242. 
Elec.  Accumulator  v.  Brush,  96,  156,  178, 
164. 

v.  Julien,  81,  90. 

v.  N.  Y.,  90,  194. 

Electric  Boot  v.  Little,  76. 

Electric    Smelting    v.    Carborundum,    26, 
114,  115,  116,  118. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(References  are  to  Notes.) 


Electric  v.  Pittsburgh,  46,  118. 
Electric  Storage  v.  Belknap,  92. 

v.  Gould,  114,  115. 

v.  Philadelphia,  80,  149,  198,  199. 

Ellis,  237. 

Emerson   and    Norris   v.    Simpson   Bros., 

45,  46,  81,  91,  131. 
Engineer  v.  Hotel,  30,  137. 
Epinger  v.  Bichey,  198. 
Erdman,  225. 
Eschner,  227. 
Evans  v.  Suess,  46. 
Everest   v.   Buffalo  Lubricating,   55,   81, 

126. 

Everett  v.  Haulenbeek,  46. 
Everson,  217. 

Excelsior  v.  Union  Needle,  159. 
Excelsior  Drum  v.  Bortel,  210. 
Expanded  Metal  v.  Bradford,  11,  77. 

v.  Board  of  Education,  168. 

Ewart  v.  Boline,  10,  16. 


F. 


Faber,  198. 

Fabric  Coloring  v.  Alexander,  5. 

Fairbanks  Wood  Rim  v.  Moore,  210. 

Falk  v.  Missouri,  3,  75. 

Fancy  v.  Empire  Fire  Clay,  10. 

Farbenfabriken  v.  Kuehmsted,  163,  177. 

Farrel  v.  United  Verde,  43,  50. 

Fefel,  226. 

Feld,  227. 

Ferrell,  227. 

Ferris,  198. 

Ferris  v.  Batcheller,  146. 

Ferro  v.  Concrete,  90,  92. 

Fessenden,  239. 

Finley  v.  Chapman,  106,  221. 

Fireball  v.  Commercial,  92,  95,  97,  98. 

Fire  Extinguisher  Case,  81. 

Fish,  218. 

Fitch  v.  Spang,  100,  115. 

Fitchburg  Duck  v.  Barrell,  194. 

Flather  v.   Weber,   136. 

Flora  v.  Powrie,  131. 

Flower  v.  Detroit,  18. 

Foote  v.  Silsby,  151. 

Forbes  v.  Thomson,  100. 

Ford  v.  Tannage,  118. 

Forsyth  v.  Clapp,  199. 

v.  Garlock,  194. 

Foulis,  225. 

Fox  v.  Knickerbocker,  126,  127. 
Francis  v.  Mellor,  24,  77,  107,  177. 
Frankford  Whiskey  v.  Mill  Creek,  47  ,79. 
Franklin  v.  Morton  v.  Cooley,  138. 


Frasch,  47,  178,  218,  225. 
French,  189.          . 
French  v.  Holcomb,  136. 

v.  Eogers,  38. 

Fried.  Krupp  v.  Midvale,  43,  50,  62,  77, 

Fritts,  26. 

Fry  v.  Rockwood,  75,  83. 

Fuller  v.  Yentzer,  239. 

Fullerton  v.  Anderson,  88,  90,  114,  126. 

G. 

Gage  v.  Kellogg,  84,  218. 

Gandy  v.  Main  Belting,  198. 

Gardner,  239. 

Gassmann,  236. 

Gayler  v.  Wilder,  82. 

Gaylord,  106. 

Geis  v.  Kimber,  123. 

General  Bakelite  v.  Nikolas,  115,  179. 

General  Chemical  v.  Blackmore,  107. 

General  Electric  v.  Butler,  52. 

v.  Campbell,  92. 

v.  Garrett,  24,  44. 

v.  Germania,  45,  131. 

-  v.  Hill- Wright,  44,  45, 

v.  Hoskins,  56,  81. 

-  v.  Laco,   10,  34,   193. 

v.  McLaren,   131. 

v.  Morgan,  118. 

-  v.  Steinberger,   131,   136. 
v.  Sutter,  121. 

v.  Winona,  65. 

v.  Yost,  75,  189. 

General  Knit  v.  Steber,  28,  29. 
General  Subconstruction  v.  Netcher,  22. 
George  Frost  v.  Cohn,  200,  208,  209. 
Georgia  v.  Billfinger,  22,  115. 
German-American  v.  Erdrich,  41,  81. 

-  v.  Loew,  45,  65,  81,  114,  121,  122. 
Giant  Powder  v.  California  Powder,  105. 
Gibbs  v.  Hoefner,  39. 

Gilbert  v.  Waltzelham,  22,  52,  116,  193, 

200. 

Gilmer,  see  L.  H.  Gilmer. 
Gindorff  v.  Deering,  37,  239. 
Globe  Nail  v.   Superior,  81,  109. 

-  v.  U.  S.  Horse  Nail,  81,  119,  155. 
Gloucester  Isinglass  v.  Brooks,  82,  84. 

v.  Le  Page,  65,  75. 

Gold,  239. 

Gold  v.  U.  S.,  77,  107,  139. 
Golden  Gate  v.  Newark,  75  . 
Goldie  v.  Diamond,  30,  33,  119. 
Goodwin  v.  Eastman,  26,  42,  90,  93. 
Goodyear  v.  Antwerp,  127. 


48 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(References  are  to  Notes.) 


v.  Berry,  176,  188. 

v.  Beverley,  141,  142. 

v.  Blake,  105. 

v.  Gary,  141. 

v.  Central  Railroad,  90. 


v.  Davis,  176,  199. 

v.  Dunbar,  48. 

v.  Evans,  188. 

v.  Flagg,  199. 

v.  Mullee,  195. 

v.  Preterre,  121. 

v.  Root,  193. 

v.  Rust,  188. 

v.  Smith,  193. 

v.  Wait,  77,  177,  181,  225. 

v.  Willis,  193. 

Gordon  v.  Turko-Halvah,  180. 
Goss  v.  Cameron,  93. 
Gottfried  v.  Bartolomae,  39. 

v.  Conrad  Seipp  Brew.,  1]0,  115. 

v.  Crescent  Brewing,  22,  81. 

-  v.  Stahlmann,  90. 

Gottstein,  240. 

Graham  v.  Johnston,  51,  79,  81. 

Grant  v.  Walter,  10,  20. 

Graphic  Arts  v.  Photo,  114. 

Grayson,  210. 

Greenfield,  225. 

Grever  v.  U.  S.  Hoffman,  13. 

Grier  v.  Wilt,  10. 

Griffith,  169. 

Griffith  v.  Murray,  208. 

Groves,  198. 

Guarantee  v.  New  Haven  Gas  Light,  45, 

6],  81. 

Gunn  v.  Savage,  80,  90,  92. 
Gunther,  194. 
Gutta  Percha  v.  Goodyear,  5,  131. 

H. 

Haarmann  De  v.  Van  Dyk,  131,  179. 

Hafely,  223. 

Hahn,  239. 

Hake  v.  Brown,  47,  62. 

Halfpenny,  239. 

Hall  v.  Ahrend,  83. 

Hammerschlag  v.  Bancroft,  44. 

v.  Garrett,  80,  109. 

—  v.  Judd,  114. 

v.  Scamoni,  80,  114. 

v.  Wichelmann,  90. 

v.  Wood,  90. 

Handy  Things  v.  Dorsey,  131. 
Hansen  v.  Slick,  74. 
Harbeck,  198. 


Harris,  67,  71. 

Harrisburg  v.  N.  Y.,  54,  114,  115,  177. 

Harrison,  239. 

Haskell  v.  Perfect,  195. 

Hassam  Paving  v.  Consolidated,  5,  45. 

Hatch  v.  Electric  Storage,  194. 

v.  Moffit,  239. 

Heald  v.  Rice,  100. 
Heath,  193. 
Hedden  v.  Eaton,  46. 
Heide,  187. 

Heller  v.  Bauer,  109. 

Hemolin  v.  Ilarway,  42,  75,  126,  163,  177, 

180. 

Henderson  v.  Cleveland,  239. 
Henry,  157,  223. 

Hentschel  v.  Carthage,  24,  82,  131,  179. 
Hentz,  236. 
Hermann,  107. 
Heroult,  101. 

Heroult  v.  Comr.  of  Pats.,  85. 
Herr,  218. 

Herzog  v.  Keller,  61,  90,  199. 
Hess  Bright  v.  Standard,  35. 
Hewlett  v.  Steinberger,  136. 
Hibbard,  43,  159. 
Hicks,  104. 

Hide  Ite  v.  Fiber,  69,  115,  196. 
Highland  v.  Schmertz,  43,  64. 
Hines,  226. 

Hitchcock  v.  American,  34,  44. 
Hobbie  v.  Smith,  193. 
Hobbs  v.  King,  174. 
Hodginson,  193. 

Hoff  v.  Iron  Clad,  91,  109,  199. 
Hoffman  v.  Aronson,  44. 

v.  Stiefel,  174. 

Hogan  v.  Westmoreland,  16,  92,  198. 
Hoke  Engraving  v.  Schraubstadter,  176. 
Holcomb,  43. 
Holiday  v.  Pickhardt,  90,  155,  177. 

v.  Schultz-Berge,  177. 

Hollister  v.  Benedict,   206. 

Holmes,   239. 

Holstein  v.  Zeeland,  93. 

Holt,  102,  239. 

Hood  v.  Boston,  38,  81V 

Hopkinson,  227. 

Horn  v.  Bergner,  8,  42. 

Hoskins  v.  General  Elec.,  177,  180. 

v.  Matthes,    184. 

Hotchkiss  v.  Greenwood,  198. 
Hotel  v.  Lorraine,  72,  205. 
Howe  v.  Abbott,  63. 
Howell,  75. 
Hoyt  v.  Home,  83. 
Hubbell  v.  U.  S.,  18. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


49 


(References  are  to  Notes.) 


Hudson  v.  Draper,  109,  131. 

Hurlburt  v.  Schillinger,  126,  194. 

Huttner  v.  Knox,  75. 

H.  W.  Johns  v.  Kobertson,  199. 

Hyde,  217. 

Hyde  v.  Minerals,  39,  43,  56,  81,  119. 


I. 


Imperial  v.  Stein,  131. 

Incandescent  Lamp  Patent,  190. 

Ingersoll,  77. 

International  Curtis  v.  Cramp,  172,  173. 

International  Terra  Cotta  v.  Maurer,  107 

International  Tooth  v.  Gaylord,  49. 

v.  Bennett,  30. 

-  v.  Kyle,  30. 
Irish  v.  Knapp,  42. 

Ironclad  v.  Jacob  J.  Vollrath,  161,  241. 

J. 

Jackson  v.  Birmingham,  115. 

v.  Nichols,   191. 

Jacobs  v.  Baker,  192. 

v.  Jaeger,  239. 

James  v.  Campbell,  100. 

Janin  v.  Curtis,  137. 

Jenkins  v.  Johnson,  170,  181. 

-  v.  Walker,  81,  177,  193. 
Jennens,  232. 

Jensen  v.  Clay,  165,  168. 

v.  Keasbey,  81. 

John  v.  Columbia  Cotton,  85. 
John  R.  Williams  v.  Miller,  65,  93. 
Johnson  v.   Chisholm,  85. 

v.  Foos,  40,  42,  121. 

v.  Hero  Fruit  Jar,  193. 

v.  Johnson,    73. 

v.  Tidewater,  49. 

Johnston  v.  American  Heat,  194. 
Jones  v.  McMurray,  107,  158. 

-  v.  Merrill,  90,  92. 

v.  Wetherill,  131,  137. 

Junker,  231. 

K. 

Kahn  v.  Starrells,  39,  44,  56. 
Kane  v.  Huggins,  92,  107. 
Karfiol  v.  Rothner,  34,  79. 

Katleyer,  67. 
Kay,  226. 

Keasbey  v.  Philip  Carey,  181. 
Keifer  v.   Unionwerke,   144. 
Keith,  239. 
Kelleher  v.  Darling,  105,  107. 


Kemper,  85. 

Kennedy  v.  Beaver,  30,  75,  77,  109. 

v.  Solar,   22. 

Kennicott  v.  Holt  Ice,  16. 
Kerr,  215,  239. 
Kerr  v.  Hoyle,  28. 
Keyes  v.  Grant,  5. 
Kiefer  v.  Unionwerke,  10. 
Kiessele  v.  Haas,  129,  179. 

-  v.  Kilbourn,  11,  238. 
Kilbourne  v.  Bingham,  77. 
Kimball  v.  Hess,  93. 
King  v.  Anderson,  180,  185. 

v.  Gallum,  193. 

v.  Hubbard,  13,  18. 

Kintner  v.  Atlantic,  39,  44,  49. 
Kintner  v.  Marconi,  5. 

Kirchberger  v.  Am.  Acetelyne,  100,  114, 

115. 

Kirchner  v.  Blair,  137. 
Kirk  v.  Elgins,  186. 
Klein  v.  Park,  47. 

— —  v.  Russell,  69,  77. 
Knickerbocker  v.  Eogers,  13. 
Knight  v.  Gavit,  14. 
Knox  Rock-Blasting  v.  Drake,  88. 
Knudsen,  239. 
Krell  Auto  v.  Story,  6. 
Kruh  v.  Thomas,  70. 
Krupp,   see  Fried  Krupp. 
Kuhl  v.  Mueller,  195. 
Kupfer  v.  Westinghouse,  177,  180. 
Kyle  v.  Corner,  137. 


L. 


Ladoff  v.  Demster,  136. 

Lalance  and  Grosjean  v.  Habermann,  34, 

114,  118,  131. 
Lamb  v.  Hamblen,  84. 
Landenberger,  183. 
Lane  v.  Levi,  112. 
Lange  v.  McGuin,  90,  92. 
Latimer,   184. 
Lauman  v.  Urschel,  60. 
Lawley,  227. 
Lawther  v.   Hamilton,   66,  77,   128,   140, 

148. 
Lederer  v.  Walker,  137. 

Lee,  225. 

Lee  v.  Upson,  51,  88. 
Leeds  and  Catlin  v.  Victor,  95,  99,  123, 

239. 

Leggett,  43. 

Leggett  v.  Standard  Oil,  105. 
L.  II.  Gilmer  v.  Geisel,  24. 
T.eightou  v.  Barker,  137. 


50 


TABLE  OP  CASES. 


(References  are  to  Notes.) 


Le  Roy  v.  Tatham,  10,  15. 
Lewis  v.  Cronemeyer,  14,  131. 

-  v.  Semple,  194. 
Libby  v.  McKee,  140. 

v.  Mt.  Washington  Glass,  77,  86. 

Lippincott,  234. 

Little,  75,  100. 
Locke,  193. 
Locke  v.  Boch,  131. 
Lockwood  v.  Cleveland,  193. 
v.  Cutter,  193. 

-  v.  Hooper,   155,   193,  211. 

v.  Lockwood,  193. 

Loeser,  24. 

Loew  v.  German-American,  79,  123. 

Loewenberg,  203. 

Lord,  217. 

Lovejoy  v.  Hill,  198. 

Lovell  v.  Gary,  56,  75. 

Lowe,  83. 

Lowrey  v.  Cowles,  93. 

Lowry,  71. 

Lowry  v.  Cowles,  92. 

Ludington  Cigarette  v.  Anargyros,  28. 

Lumber  v.  Nestor,  22,  52,  54. 

Lupton,  194. 

Luten,  75. 

M. 

McBerty  v.  Cook,  131. 

McClain,  239. 

McClave  v.  Treadwell,  13. 

McClellan,  222. 

McClurg  v.  Kingsland,  34,  37,  42. 

McCormick  v.  Medusa,  45,  149,  181. 

McCracken  v.  Russell,  137. 

McDougall,  227,  235. 

McEwan  v.  McEwan,  198. 

v.  White,  189. 

McKay  v.  Dibert,  103. 

v.  Jackman,  36. 

McKesson  v.  Carnrick,  87. 
McKloskey  v.  Dubois,   159. 
McKnight  v.  Pohle,  22,  107,  131. 
McMahan,  217. 

McMurray,  61. 

MacArthur  v.  Simplex,  67,  90. 
Macbeth  Evans  v.   General   Electric,   81, 

131. 

Maitland  v.  Gibson,  16. 
Malignani  v.  Germania,  44. 

v.  Hill  Wright,  41,  44. 

v.  Jaseph  Marsh,  81,  87,  91,  113. 

Manhattan  v.  Helios  Upton,  58,  113. 
Mann,  30. 

Manning  v.  Cape  Ann,  131. 
Many  v.  Sizer,  146. 


Marchand  v.  Emken,  50,  83. 
Marconi  v.  De  Forest,  38,  114. 

-  v.  National,  38,  40. 

v.  Shoemaker,  77,  131. 

Mark  v.  Greenwalt,  5,  131. 
Marsden  v.  Comr.  Pats.,  193. 
Marsh  v.  Dodge,  239. 
Maryland  v.  Dorr,  163. 

Maryland  Hominy  v.  Baltimore,  47,  163. 
Mason,  43. 

Matheson  v.  Campbell,  22,  77,  78,  87. 
Matteawan  Mfg.  v.  Emmons,  31,  90,  92. 
Matthews  v.  Iron  Clad,  109. 

v.  Skates,  177.    ' 

v.  Stoneberger,  239. 

Maule,  74. 

Maurer  v.  Dickerson,  81,  82,  131,  177. 

Mayall,  113,  151,  155. 

Mayer  v.  Mutschler,  14. 

Melvin  v.  Thomas  Potter,  46. 

Merrell  v.  Natural,  5,  47,  61,  75,  88,  113. 

-  v.  Powdered  Milk,  46,  61,  75,  81, 

88,  93. 

Merrill,  22,  71. 

Merrill  v.  Yosmans,  19,  115,  146. 
Mershon  v.  Bay  City  Box,  239. 
Metal  v.  Bradford,  67. 
Metropolitan  Washing  v.   Earle,   142. 
Meyer  v.  Pritchard,  43,  194. 
Meyer  v.  Sarfert,  103. 
Mica    Insulator    v.    Commercial,    34,    97, 

114,  135. 

v.  Union,  46. 

Michaelis  v.  Larkin,  91,  138. 

-  v.  Roessler,    87,   93,   119. 
Miehle  Printing  v.  Whilock,  173. 
Miller   v.   Androscoggin   Pulp,   46. 

v.  Force,  76,  88. 

v.  Speller,  137. 

v  Milligan,  194. 

Milligan  v.  Upton,  178. 
Milner  v.  Harrison,  4. 
Milton  v.  Jordan,  196. 
Mine  v.  Braeckel,  14. 

Minerals  Separation  v.  Hyde,  34,  57,  81. 

v.  Miami,  39,  57,  113,  131. 

Mississippi  v.  Pittsburgh,  93. 
Mitchell  v.   Connellsville,   10,   15. 
Model  Bottling  v.  Anheuser,  83,  103. 
Moeser,  72. 
Moffitt  v.   Cavanaugh,  64. 

v.  Rogers,  64. 

Mond  v.  Commissioner  of  Patents,  43,  75. 
Monden  v.  Curtis,  106. 
Moody  v.  Colby,  136. 
Moore  Filter  v.  Tonopah,  41,  45,  60,  65, 
67,  117. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


51 


(References  are  to  Notes.) 


Morris,  32. 

Morton  v.  N.  Y.  Eye,  6,  47,  75. 

Mosler  v.  Lurie,  77. 

Mosler  v.  Mosler,  96,  169,  206,  225. 

Motion  Picture  v.  Laemmle,  239. 

Moulton,  80,  114. 

Moulton  v.  Com.  of  Patents,  50,  239. 

Mowry  v.  Whitney,  65,  67,  75,  90,  128. 

Mraz,  77. 

Munising  v.  American  Sulphite,  86,  126, 

176. 

Muntz  v.  Foster,  81. 
Murmann,  225. 
Murray,  231. 

Muscan  Hair  v.  American,  90,  92. 
Musgrave  v.  Comrnr.  Patents,  51,  183. 


N. 


National  Chemical  v.   Swift,   22,  75,  77, 

91. 
-  Electric  v.  Telefunken,  18. 

Elec.   Signal  v.   United  Wireless, 

38,  51,  60. 

Enamelling  v.  N.  E.,  10,  21,  22, 

24,  75,  88,  92,  113,  118,  171,  180, 


Filtering  v.  Arctic  Oil,  131,  137. 

-  Metal  v.  Flexible  Conduit,  44,  45. 
Newsboard  v.  Elkhart,  24. 

-  Phono,   v.  American,  75,   90,  91, 
94,  115. 

Phono,  v.  Lambert,  84. 

-  Tube  v.  Spang,  49. 

Naylor  v.  Alsop,  15,  42,  46,  75,  138. 
Needham  v.  Washburn,  66. 
Neidich  v.  Edwards,  30. 
Neill  v.  Comr.  Pats.,  107. 
New  Process  Fermentation  v.  Baltz,  115. 
—  v.  Koch,  11,  75. 

-  v.  Maus,  21,  40,  46,  65,  79,  93. 
New  v.  Warren,  100. 

N.  Y.  Asbestos  v.  Ambler  Asbestos,  199. 

-  Belt  v.  Magowan,  193,  194. 
Belt  v.  N.  J.,  202. 

Belt  v.  Sierer,  207. 

Filter  v.  Elmira,  44,  114,  118. 

Filter  v.    Jackson,    123. 

-  Filter  v.  Jewell,  45. 
Filter  v.  Niagara,  114. 

Grape  Sugar  v.  Buffalo,  39,  65. 

Pharm.  v.  Tilden,  186. 


J-     itCVl.111.        V.        JL  J-lVAT^-llj       _L<JV/. 

Phonograph  v.  National,  140. 

Nimmy  v.  Comr.  Pats.,  193. 

North   American    Chemical   v.   Keno,    26, 

75,   161,   180,  197. 
Northwestern  v.  Philadelphia,  137. 


Norwood,  217. 

Novelty  v.  Brookfield,  14,  21. 

O. 

Odheimer,  194. 

Ohio  Varnish  v.  Glidden,  76,  180. 

O'Neill,  225. 

O'Reilly  v.  Morse,  6,  10,  38,  239. 

Oriental  Tissue  v.  De  Jonge,  177. 

—  v.  Louis,  209. 

Orr  v.  Aschenbach,  24,  200. 

Osborne,  229. 

Otley  v.  Watkins,  112. 

Oval  Wood  v.  Sandy  Creek,  172,  193. 

Oxnard,  220. 

P. 

Pacholder,  239. 

Pacific  v.  Bingham,  42,  66. 

v.  Soi 

Painter,  153. 

Palmer  v.  Lozier,  213. 

Panzl  v.  Battle  Island,  180,  181,  234. 
Parent,  225. 

Parham  v.  American  Buttonhole,  239. 
Parke  Davis  v.  H.  K.  Mulford,  78,  86, 

87,  108,  138,  149,  162,  167,  181. 
Parsons  v.  Colgate,  167,  177. 
Pasteur  Chamberlain  Filter  v.  Funk,  177. 
Paterson,  61. 
Pease,  196,  238. 
Peerless  Eubber  v.  White,  199. 
Pelton  Water  Wheel  v.  Doble,  13. 
Penn  Elec.  v.  Conroy,  101,  239. 
Penna.  v.  Cleveland,  49,  75. 
Peoria  Target  v.  Cleveland,  183. 
Perkins,  65,  101. 

Perkins  Glue  v.  Solva,  47,  125,  163. 
Peters  v.  Active,  91. 

v.  Chicago   Biscuit,   43,   52,   77. 

Petrie  v.  De  Schweinitz,  131. 
Pfaudler,  100. 

Philadelphia  Creamery  v.  Davis,  109, 190. 
Philadelphia  Eubber  v.  Portage,  38,  113, 
131. 

v.  U.  S.,  113. 

Phillips,  194,  237. 
Phillips  v.  Detroit,  193. 

—  v.  Kochert,  75,  83,  88. 
Pickhardt  v.  Packard,  155,  162,  167. 
Pieper  v.  S.  S.  White,  5. 

Pike  v.  Porter,  88. 
Piper  v.  Brown,  126. 
Pittsburgh  Iron  v.  Seaman,  185. 

-  Eeduction  v.  Cowles  Elec.  Smelt., 
34,  75,  81,  86,  114,  118. 


52 


TABLE  OF  CASES, 


(References  are  to  Notes.) 


Plastic  Fireproof  v.  City,  207. 

—  Slate  v.  Moore,  178,  180,  181. 
Plumb,  239. 

Plummer  v.  Sargent,  91,  168. 
Poillon  v.  Schmidt,  75. 
Pope  v.  Clark,  198. 

v.  McKenzie,  137. 

Popenhusen  v.  N.  Y.  Gutta,  90. 
Porter  v.  Baldwin,  7,  33. 
Potter  v.  Tone,  137. 

Potthoff  v.  Hanson,  54,  87,  115. 

Powell,   225. 

Power  v.  Proeger,  220. 

Powrie,  220,  225. 

Pratt,  153. 

Pratt  v.  Thompson,  10,  75,  177. 

Pressed  Prism  v.  Continuous,  40,  44,  46, 

51,  62,  126,  163. 
Propfe  v.  Coddington,  177. 
Providence  Rubber  v.  Goodyear,  105,  126, 

140,  174. 

Q- 

Queen  v.  Friedlander,  239. 
R. 

Rajah  v.  Emil,  194. 

Rand  McNally  v.  Exchange  Script,  194. 

Randall,  227. 

Ransome  v.  Norris,  46. 

Rappleye,  229. 

Rawson  v.  Western,  46. 

Read  Holiday  v.  Schulze-Berge,  167,  180. 

Ready  v.  Taylor,  131,  195. 

Reay  v.  Berlin  and  Jones  Envelope,  239. 

v.  Raynor,  239. 

Reed  v.  Roberts,  137. 

v.  Street,  157,  198. 

Reese,  90. 

Reichenbach  v.  Kelly,   13. 

Reid,  225. 

Rembert  v.  American,  54,  116. 
Rembusch  v.  Bennethum,  194. 
Renwick  v.  Pond,  239. 
Reynolds  v.  Standard,  207. 
Rice  v.  Burt,  71. 
Rich  v.  Lippincott,  131. 
Richardson  v.  Leidgen,  86. 
Rickard  v.  Du  Bon,  32. 
Rider  v.  Adams,  91. 
Rietzel  v.  Harmatta,  101,  106. 
Riley  v.  Barnard,  136. 

v.  Bauman,  131. 

Risdon  v.  Meaart,  10,  92,  153,  159,  239. 
Riter-Conley  v.  Aiken,  192. 


Ritter  v.  Atlanta,  83. 
Roberts  v.  Dickey,  81,  82. 

-  v.  Roter,  91. 

—  v.   Schreiber,   82,  85,   86,   88,  93, 

124. 

Rochester  v.  Schaefer,  50. 
Rogers,  180. 
Roehr  v.  Bliss,  59,  212. 
Rogers,  8,  10,  153,  196. 
Rogers  v.  Ennis,  187. 
Roloson,  239. 
Root  v.  Lamb,  115. 
Roselius,  153. 
Rosell  v.  Allen,  109,  133. 
Rowe,  99. 

Royce  v.  Fifield,  202. 
Royden  Marble  v.  Davis,  83,  239. 
Royer  v.  Chicago,  22,  82,  177. 

-  v.  Coupe,  24,  152. 

—  v.  Shultz,  109,  128. 

v.  Willemsen,  189. 

R.  Thomas  v.  Electric,  38,  42,  47,  62,  82, 

171,  193,  225. 
Rubber  v.  India,  50. 
Rubber  Step  v.  Metropolitan,  195. 
Ruckrich,  106. 
Rudd,  67. 
Rumford  v.  Hecker,  76,  123,  182. 

v.  Hygienic,  123. 

-  v.  Lauer,  182. 

—  v.  N.  Y.,  148,  149,  163. 
Ruping  v.  Lowry,  137. 
Russell,  223. 

Russell  v.  Dodge,  23,  107. 
Ryan  v.  Goodwin,  177,  187. 
K'ynear  v.  Evans,  212. 


S. 


Sackett  v.  Ratkowsky,  193,  194. 

Sadtler  v.  Carmichael  v.  Smith,  67,  133. 

Safety  Armorite  v.  Mark,  Go. 

St.  Louis  Stamping  v.  Quinby,  107. 

Salem  v.  Thomson,  71. 

Salts  Textile  v.  Tingue,  38,  90. 

Sanche,  6. 

Sanders  v.   Emerson,   137. 

Sanford  Mills  v.  Mass.  Mohair,  43. 

San  Francisco  v.  Beyrle,  30,  47. 

Sanitary  Street  Flushing  v.  Amsterdam, 

12. 

Sanitas  v.  Voigt,  157,  163. 
Sarfert  v.  Chipman,  43. 
Saunders  v.  Miller,  97. 
Sawyer  v.  Edison,  137. 
Scheckner,  153. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


53 


(References  are  to  Notes.) 


Schillinger  v.  Gunther,  90,  127,  194,  195. 

-  v.  Middleton,   195. 

v.  Ferine,  194. 

Schlicht  v.  Aeolipyle,  116,  138,  242. 
Schmertz  v.  Pittsburgh,  42,  43. 

v.  Western,    42,    43,    64,    93,    94, 

115,  126. 
Schmidt,  225. 
Schupphaus  v,  E.  I.  Du  Pont,  114. 

-  v.  Stevens,  5. 

Schwartz  v.   Housman,  62,  119. 
Schwarzwalder  v.  N.  Y.,  39,  45. 
Scott,  226. 

Schrivener  v.  Oakland  Gas,  101. 

Seibert   Cyl.   Oil   Cup  v.   Harper   Steam, 

18,  113,  114. 
Selbers,  153,  159. 
Sewall  v.  Jones,  22,  81. 
Shaefer,  183. 
Shatters,   106. 
Shannon,  193. 
Shannon  v.  Brunner,  194. 
Shaw  v.  Colwell,  45. 
Sherwood  v.  Drewson,   137. 
Shippen,  43,  239. 
Shuter  v.  Davis,  193. 
Sickles  v.  Falls,  131. 
Siemund  v.  Endelin,  83. 
Silverman  v.  Hendrickson,  137. 
Simmonds  v.  Hathorn,  47. 
Simmonds  Counter  v.  Young,  24. 
Simonds,  218. 
Slade  v.  Blair,  75,  235. 
Slingluff  v.  Bolin,  77,  107. 

-  v.  Sweet,  138. 
Sloan  v.  Portland,   177. 
Smith,  235. 

Smith  v.  Elliott,  157,  193. 

v.  Goodyear,  193,  198. 

v.  Murray,  78,  182. 

v.  Nichols,  207. 

-  v.  Pittsburgh  Gas,  66,  90. 
Smyth,  222. 

Snook-Roentgen  v.  Stetson,  33,  173. 
Snow  v.  Tapley,  67. 

-  v.  Taylor,  75. 
Societe  Anon.  v.  Allen,  209. 

Soc.  Fabriques  v.  Luders,  92,  168. 

Sommer,  67,  178. 

Sovereign  v.   Lillie,   107. 

Spear,  43. 

Spencer  v.  Penna.  R.  Co.,  145. 

v.  Trafford,   131. 

Spill  v.   Celluloid,   81,   89,  90,   167,   177, 

239. 
Spirella  v.  Nubone,  83. 


Sporting  v.  Haskell,  194. 

Standard   Asphalt   v.    American,   42,    61, 

131. 
Paint   v.   Bird,   46,    69,   77,   176, 

177,  193,  200. 

Stead  Lens  v.  Kryptok,  194. 
Stearns  v.  Russell,  97,  98. 
Steel  Clad  v.  Davison,  200. 

v.  Mayor,  199. 

Steiner    Fire    Extinguisher    v.    City    of 

Adrian,  113. 
Steinmetz,  26,  81,  222. 
Steinmetz  v.  Allen,  217. 
Stemple,   225. 
Stevens  v.  Keating,  5,  7. 

-  v.  Seher,  77,  138,  166,  190. 
Steward  V.  American  Lava,  81,  107. 
Stilwell  v.  McPherson,  193. 
Stimson,   227. 
Stimson  v.  Woodman,  239. 
Stocking,  230. 

Stokes  v.  Heller,  30,  119,  239. 
Stone  v.  Pupin,  131. 
Stow  v.  Chicago,  189. 
Strater  v.  Keyes,  40. 
Streator  v.  Wire  Glass,  40. 
Stroh,  227. 

Strom  v.  Weir,  30,  212. 
Strong,  198. 

Strong  v.  Noble,  25,  195. 
Stuart,  97. 

Stuart  v.  Auger,  43,  81. 
Sun  Vapor  v.  Western,  109,  144. 
Sundh  Elec.  v.  General  Elec.,  5,  16. 
Swain  v.  Ladd,  239. 
Sydeman  v.  Thoma,  13,  137. 


T. 


Taber  v.  Marceau,  91. 
Tainter,  225. 
Talbot  v.  Monell,  131. 
Tallmadge,  72,  239. 
Tannage  v.  Adams,  88. 

v.  Donallen,  75. 

v.  Zahn,  22,  51,  75,  88,  157, 

Tarr  v.  Folsom,  148,  184. 

-  v.  Webb,  183. 
Taylor,  43. 

Taylor  v.  Archer,  195. 
Temple,  240. 
Terry  v.  Sturtevant,  8. 
Tesla  v.   Scott,   58. 
Thomas,  see  R.   Thomas. 
Thompson  v.  Bushnell,  122,  193. 

v.  Jennings,  200,  201. 

Thomson,  226. 


54 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


(References  are  to  Notes.) 


Thomson  Elec.  Welding  v.  Barney,  114, 
174. 

v.  Two  Rivers,  40. 

Thomson  Houston  v.  Dayton,  118. 

v.  Salem,  49. 

v.  Wagner,   70,  92. 

Thrall  v.  Poole,  195. 
Tibbe  v.  Missouri,  195. 

Tilghman  v.  Proctor,  26,  41,  48,  86,  126. 

v.  Morse,  38,  45,  83. 

Toch    v.    Zibell,    81,    131. 
Todd,  189. 

Tompkins  v.  St.  Regis,  66,  75,  90,  131. 
Tonopah  v.  Vincent,  68,  94. 
Townsend  v.  Thullen,  77. 
Travers  v.  American  Cordage,  39. 

v.  Hammock,  92. 

Treadwell  v.  Fox,  14,  131. 
Treibacher  Chemische  v.  Roessler,  177. 

v.  Wolf,  92. 

Trevette,  11,  228. 

Tripler  v.  Linde,  95,  131,  137. 

Truesdell,  153. 

Trussed  v.  Corruated,  24,  200. 

Tschirner,  230. 

Tuck  v.  Bramhill,  193. 

Tucker  v.  Rurditt,  91,  105. 

v.  Corbin,  91. 

v.  Dana,  104. 

v.  Sargent,  62,  115. 

v.  Tucker,  114,  115. 

Turner,  72. 

Tweedle,  161. 
Tyler  v.  Boston,  177. 
Tymeson,  225. 
Tyne,  226. 


U. 


Uhlman  v.  Arnholdt,  9,  65,  80. 

-  v.  Bartholomae,  81. 
Underwood  v.  Gerber,  10,  214. 
Union  Biscuit  v.  Peters,  52. 

Carbide  v.   Amer.    Carbide,    115, 

138,  163. 

Mfg.  v.  Lounsbury,  137. 

Match  v.  Diamond,  239. 

Paper  Bag  v.  Waterbury,  43,  75. 

Paper  Collar  v.  Leland,  202. 

Paper  Collar  v.  Van  Deusen,  75 

204,  207. 

. Special  v.  Singer,  239. 

Tubing  v.  Patterson,  170,  195. 

United  Indurated  v.  Whippany,  115,  209. 
United  Nickel  v.  Anthes,  38,  149,  160. 

—  v.  California,  38,  125,  138,  160. 

v.  Central  Pacific,  127,  149,  160. 


v.  Harris,  34,  149,   160. 

v.  Keith,  111,  149,  160. 

v.  Manhattan,   42,   81,   115,   131, 

149,   160. 

v.  Melchior,  160. 

-  v.  Pendleton,  149,  160,  177. 
United  Shoe  v.  Greenman,  13. 

U.  S.  Consoll.  Seeded  v,  Selma  Fruit,  52, 
239. 

Electric  v.  Edison,  84. 

and  Foreign  v.  Merrimack,  183. 

Frumentum  v.  Lanhoff,  44,   120, 

126. 

Glass  v.  Atlas,  44,  91. 

Hoffman  v.  Becker,  18. 

Metallic  v.  Hewitt,  199. 

Mineral  v.  Manville,  84. 

Mitis  v.  Carnegie,  42,  44,  52,  131. 

Mitis  v.  Midvale,  88,   113,  131. 

—  Repair  v.  Assyrian,  71,  90. 

-  Repair  v.   Standard,  49,  88,   116. 
United  Tunnel  v.  Interborough,  49. 
Universal  v.  Willimantic,  135. 
Universal  Brush  v.  Sonn,  24,  41,  49,  91. 


V. 


Vacuum  Cleaning  v.  Innovation,  13. 
Vacuum  Oil  v.  Buffalo,  105. 
Vaile  v.  Buckeye  Iron,  51. 
Van  Camp  v.  Maryland  Pavement,  146. 
Van  Deusen  v.  Nellis,  207. 
Vermont  v.  Gibson,  38,  80,  123,  143. 
Very,  225. 

Victor   Talking  v.   Am.   Gramophone,   42 
47,  65,  90,  103,  219. 

v.  Am.  Graphophone,  168. 

—  v.  Duplex,  96,  114,  115. 

v.  Hoschke,  95,  98. 

v.  Sonora,  95. 

Vinton  v.  Hamilton,  83. 

Vollrath  v.  Comstock,  177. 

Voorhees  Rubber  v.  McDonell,  16,  199. 

W. 

Wagner,  93. 
Walker,  227. 
Wall  v.  Leek,  45. 
Wallace  v.  Noyes,  64,  160. 
Wallerstein  v.  Christian,  5. 

-  v.  Liebmann,  45,  88,  114. 
Walrath  v.  Pacific,  93. 
Warren  v.  Dodge,  93. 

v.  Evans,  86,  113. 

v.  Grand  Rapids,  5. 

v.  Montgomery,  92,  162,  181. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


55 


(References  are  to  Notes.) 


v.  N.  Y.,  180,  381. 

-  v.  Owosso,   86,   162,   180,   181. 
Warren  Featherbone  v.  American,  65. 
Waterbury  Brass  v.  Miller,  97,  162,  174. 
Waterman,  46. 

Waterman  v.  Thomson,  75,  82. 
Watson  v.  Stevens,  47. 
Weber,  36. 
Weida,  180. 
Weierman  v.  Shaw,  10. 
Weintraub  v.  Hewitt,   18,   70,   137. 
Welch,  61,  107. 
Welling  v.  Crane,  183,  187. 
v.  Le  Bau,  130,  176. 

v.  Rubber  Coated,  146,  198,  199. 

Wells  v.  Hegaman,  14. 

_ —  Glass  v.  Henderson,  30,  239. 
Welsbach,  183. 
Welsbach  v.  American,  93,  131. 

v.  Cosmopolitan,   27. 

v.  Incandescent,    146. 

-  v.  Rex,  193. 

v.  Sunlight,   93. 

Werner,  221. 

Western  Elec.  v.  Ansonia  Brass,  76,  77, 

163. 

Western  Glass  v.  Schmertz,  7,  61,  90,  91, 
126  . 

-  Mineral  v.  Globe,  113. 

-  Tube  v.  Rainear,  198. 
Westinghouse  Elec.  v.  Allis,  33,  71. 

v.  Beacon,  40,  82. 

v.  Dayton,  58,  65,  102,  122. 

v<  Electric,   58,   96. 

-  v.  Montgomery,  78,  85,  92,  115. 

-  v.  N.  E.  Granite,  58. 
v.  Orange,  115. 

v.  Roberts,   115. 

v.  Saranac,  81,  115. 

—  v.  Stanley,  58,  95,  115. 

-  v.  Sutter,  114,  131. 

v.  Toledo,  114. 

v.  Wagner,  123. 

Weston,  11,  35. 

Westrumite  Co.  v.  Lincoln  Park,  90,  92. 

Wetherell,  41. 

Wetherill  v.  N.  J.  Zinc,  111,  127. 

Wheat,  234. 

Wheeler,  81. 


Wheeler  v.  Simpson,  239. 
Whippary  v.  United,  92. 
White,  43,  102. 
White  v.  Dunbar,  107. 
Whitman  v.  King,  131,  137. 
Whitney  v.  Emmett,  17. 
Wickelman  v.  A.  B.  Dick,  84. 
Wickers,  43. 
Wickers  v.  Albert,  133. 

v.  McKee,  133,  137. 

v.  Upham,  133,  137. 

Wickwire  v.  Wire,  1 1G. 
Wilcox  v.  Bookwalter,  65. 
Williams,  222,  225. 
Wilson,  235. 
Wilson  v.  Ellis,  90,  190,  191. 

v.  Hunter,  71,  90. 

Wing  v.  Anthony,  100. 
Wintherlich,  231,  244. 
Wohltmann,   227. 

Wolff  v.  E.  I.  Du  Pont,  42,  75. 
Woltereck,  90. 
Wonson  v.  Gilman,  177. 

v.  Peterson,  107,  177. 

Wood  v.  Cleveland,  123. 

v.  Duncan,  90. 

v.  Kahn,  75,  88. 

v.  Underbill,  77. 

Woodward  v.  Morrison,  181. 
Wooster  v.  Calhoon,  159. 
Wooten,  105,  107. 
Worley  v.  Loker,  131. 
Wright,  43. 

Wurts  v.  Harrington,  137. 
Wyeth  v.  Stone,  17. 
Wynne,  224. 

Y. 

Young,  226,  239. 

Young  v.  Burley,  83,  88,  131. 

Z. 

Zabel,  227. 
Zan  v.  Quong,  144. 
Zimmerman  v.  Advance,  43,  90. 
Zinsser  v.  Kremer,  61. 

v.  Krueger,  75. 

Zwietusch  v.  Stockheim,  137. 


INDEX. 


(The  References  are  to  Pages.) 


Abandonment,  23. 
Accidental,  20. 
Added  step,  27. 
Adulterant,  7,  10. 
Affidavits,  22. 
Aggregation,  1C. 
Alloy,  34. 
Alternative,  41. 
Amendments,  23,  31. 
Analogous,  39. 
Analogous  material,  17. 
Analogous  steps,  19. 
Analysis,  34. 
Anticipation,  18. 
Apparatus,  see  ' '  Machine. ' ' 
Application,  23,  39. 
Artificial,  35. 

B. 


E. 


Electricity  14,  16. 

Empirical,  26,  31. 

Equivalents,  21,  22,  32,  33,  35. 

Error,  20,  '25. 

Evidence,  6,  28. 

Experiment,  5,  19,  30. 

Experimenting,  35. 

Expert  testimony,  see  "Evidence." 


Failures,  29. 
Foreign,  22. 
Functional,  41. 


Hand  process,  14. 


P. 


H. 


Bookkeeping,  16. 
Broadening,  24. 
Business  method,   16,  38. 
By-product  control,  10,  35. 

C. 

Cases,  table  of,  43. 
Claims,  7,  8,  24,  25,  30,  37,  40,  41,  42. 
Coating,  22. 
Completing  process,  27. 
Composition,  25,  35,  37,  41. 
Continuing  applications,  24. 
Courts,  8. 
Crystaline,  32. 

D. 

Damages,  28. 
Definitions,  7,  32. 
Degree,   11,  13,  34. 
Demurrer,  22. 
Description,  18. 
Detail  description,  9. 
Disclosure  incomplete,  27. 
Division,  39,  40. 
Division,  corrected,  20. 
Drawing,  40. 
Double  patenting,  23. 


Identity,  16,  23,  39. 
Industrial  value,  7. 
Infringement,  26,  27,  28,  37. 
Injunction,  22. 
Instrument,  5. 
Integral,  39. 
Interference,  29,  36,  40. 


J. 


Joint  invention,  10. 


Licenses,  30. 
Limitations,  9. 


L. 


M. 


Machine,  39. 

Machine  made,  39. 

Machine  patent,  23. 

Manufacture,  36,  37. 

Means,  23. 

Mental  cooperation,  5. 

"Method,"  8. 

Method,  23. 

Method  electrical,  24. 

Moving  picture  as  evidence,  29. 


58 


N. 

New   discovery,  33. 
New  material,  20. 
New  matter,  24,  42. 
New  step,  12,  13,  27. 


O. 


Omitting  step,  25. 
Operation,  5. 
Operativeness,  40. 


P. 


(The 


INDEX. 

References  are  to  Pages.) 


Paper  patent,  18. 
Patentability,  5. 
Patent  Office,  39. 
Physical  differences,  34. 
Practice,  office,  39. 
''Predetermined,"   15. 
Preposterous,  10. 
Prior  art,  22,  38. 
Process,  39,  and  passim. 
Product,  5,  12,  15,  32,  39. 
Proof,  see  "  Evidence. " 
Properties,  35. 
Purer,  32. 

R. 

Reducing  to  practice,  29. 
References,  35. 


"Regulated,"  15. 
Reissue,  23,  £4,  26. 
Result,   31. 
Revolutionary,  10,   11,  21. 


Secret  use,  27. 

Sequence,  11,  12,  15,  16. 

Specification,  8,  9,  16,  18,  27,  37,  38,  42. 

Step,  new,  12,  27. 

Step  substitute,  13. 

Sub  process,  40,  41. 

Suggestion,  29. 

Synthetic,  25. 

T. 

Temperature  control,  15. 
Testimony,  see  "Evidence." 
Textile  patents,  10. 
Theory,  14,  25,  37. 
Tickets,  37,  38. 
Transposition  of  material,  11. 

U. 

Unattainable,  33. 

"Use,"  31,  42. 

Utility,  7,  10,  20,  32,  34,  36,  42. 


W. 


material,  17. 


-*»  -DXiXiUW 


JUN    191934 
JUL  2«  {337 


f'Ji/fr  9 


(la 


372  J  84 

- 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


